Question of the week

Duncan “Atrios” Black raised a very interesting question on his blog Sunday: If they’re “the same,” why are the swift boat liars on every news show and Move On people are not? Why indeed? Moveon.org is a partisan organization funded largely by a shadowy billionaire using his influence to elect a president more sympathetic to … Continue reading “Question of the week”

Duncan “Atrios” Black raised a very interesting question on his blog Sunday:

If they’re “the same,” why are the swift boat liars on every news show and Move On people are not?

Why indeed? Moveon.org is a partisan organization funded largely by a shadowy billionaire using his influence to elect a president more sympathetic to his interests and values by running misleading ads, while SwiftVets is a partisan organization funded largely by a millionaire using his influence to re-elect a president sympathetic to his interests and values by running ads some find misleading. The SwiftVets ads are the more above-board since they rely on actual people who are willing to go on record with their complaints against Kerry, and suffer the consequences. The Moveon ads are like the Atrios blog, pseudonymous and unsupported by any verifiable claims.

But the SwiftVets ads are finally getting media attention after the “ignore it and it will go away” strategy didn’t work. It’s also interesting to note just how the MSM broke their silence on the SwiftVet charges: with long, drawn-out “investigative” pieces tracing the web of connections between the Republican Party and the SwiftVets people, as if merely voting Republican were tantamount to committing a crime.

Look, folks, it’s not a surprise that Kerry’s harshest critics are Republicans any more than it’s a surprise that the President’s are French, socialist, and anti-American; we choose sides and that’s where the sides stand right now.

In the evolution of Kerry’s Vietnam Crisis, we’re now at stage two: first they ignore you, then they attack you, then you win. The media’s reaction to the SwiftVets has cost them credibility, as has Kerry’s.

Not only was the man no hero in Vietnam, he hasn’t done anything since Vietnam that was in any way remarkable, so there’s no reason to switch horses at this point in the stream.

6 thoughts on “Question of the week”

  1. I think George W. Bush’s harshest critics, are, in fact, Americans apalled at what he has done and what he has failed to do in our name.

    Moreover, it’s clear that a) the Swift Boat Liars’ (only true thing to call ’em) are now getting blowback- the latest is the conflicting statements by John O’Neill about being in …Cambodia!, and whether Oregon prosecutor Alfred French should be sanctioned for filing a false affidavit b) Kerry’s achievements in uncovering Iran-Contra and BCCI are, in actuality quite threatening to the current regime, since if elected he has the potential to “get to the bottom of things.

    Among those things, hopefully, will be the relationship between the “Year Zero” free-marketeers attempted makeover in Iraq and the violence there, as recently reported by Naomi Klein in the Nation.

  2. Apparently Kerry’s supporters have so little confidence in the truth they must resort to Stalinist tactics to silence the dissidents.

    It turns out that O’Neil hasn’t made conflicting statements about his being in Cambodia. Quite the contrary, those who think the best way to engage in political dialog is to smear one’s opponent made some rash assumptions about how he got there. O’Neil explained that he sailed into Cambodia on a different river than the Mekong, something that shouldn’t come as a surprise to one learned in geography. There is no basis for this smear.

    The French case exposes yet another dark side of the modern-day left, namely the one that seeks to triumph in dialog by killing the opposition. You may agree or disagree with French’s point of view as you please, but calling on his employer to terminate him is beyond the pale. If French has violated his ethics as an attorney, there is a process in place to deal with the infraction.

    I don’t read the Nation, so I have no comment on whatever mud is coming from their pro-Saddam corner today.

  3. French shot his cred as a prosecutor- so he should resign, rather than face disbarrment.

    Being dishonest and filing false affidavits isn’t a matter of a point of view- it’s an indicator of moral turpitude, and diqualifies him from practicing law.

    O’Neill, of course, has been hoist on his own petard.

  4. Your claim that French filed a false affadvit is simply an opinion until it’s been adjudicated; just a point of view.

    But I’m sure French appreciates your looking out for his career prospects, for sure. Meanwhile, go see the latest Swiftvets ad and weep for Kerry’s candidacy; it’s now officially toast.

  5. Heh heh- French’s moral turpitude IS being adjudicated- there have been complaints filed against his affidavit.

    Looks like he’s going to have to consider a career change.

    Swiftliars are so last week- they’ve been fully discredited by now.

    Get ready for the de-branding of W.

Comments are closed.