Wash. Post's Cillizza asserted that Swift Boaters "raise[d] questions about" Kerry's military credentials, did not note accusations were false and baseless smears
SUMMARY: Discussing on CNN the 2004 presidential election and noting that Democrats believed Sen. John Kerry had "unassailable military credentials," Chris Cillizza asserted, "Well, lo and behold, a group called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth raises questions about it, John Kerry is presented as a flip-flopper, and that conventional wisdom goes out the window." But Cillizza failed to note that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's "questions" were false and baseless smears about Kerry's service in the Vietnam War.
On the July 13 edition of CNN's This Week in Politics, washingtonpost.com political reporter Chris Cillizza said, "[R]emember in the last election, the thinking was, 'We're gonna nominate [Sen.] John Kerry [D-MA]. He has unassailable military credentials. There's no way we can be branded as soft on defense, soft on national security.' " Cillizza then asserted, "Well, lo and behold, a group called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth raises questions about it, John Kerry is presented as a flip-flopper, and that conventional wisdom goes out the window." But Cillizza failed to note that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's "questions" were false and baseless smears about Kerry's service in the Vietnam War. Indeed, an August 12, 2004, Washington Post editorial called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign "a new assault on Mr. Kerry [that] crosses the line in branding Mr. Kerry a coward and a liar" and stated: "This smear is contradicted by Mr. Kerry's crew mates, undercut by the previous statements of some of those now making the charges and tainted by the chief source of its funding: Republican activists dedicated to defeating Mr. Kerry in November."
The Washington Post also reported on August 19, 2004, that "Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, [that] contradict his own version of events," referring to Larry Thurlow, "who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam" and "a leading member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Additionally, the Post also reported on August 22, 2004, that "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."
Cillizza's comments come just days after he mischaracterized Kerry's reason for calling on Sen. John McCain to "cut ties" with Swift Boat Veterans for Truth member and retired Air Force Col. George "Bud" Day. As Media Matters for America noted, Cillizza falsely suggested that Kerry called on McCain to "cut ties" with Day because of Day's defense of McCain's military service in Vietnam. In fact, in a June 30 statement, Kerry wrote that his call for McCain to sever ties with Day was due to Day's role in the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Day's assertion that "the Swift Boat 'attacks' were simply revelation of the truth."
From the July 13 edition of CNN's This Week in Politics:
TOM FOREMAN (host): The continuing concern, it seems to me, with Democrats continues to be that uneasiness of moderates who may say Democrats get squishy on national defense. The Democrats keep saying, "No, we're not." But the perception remains.
CILLIZZA: I think that inevitably in politics, many of the observers are fighting the last election. And remember in the last election the thinking was, "We're gonna nominate John Kerry. He has unassailable military credentials. There's no way we can be branded as soft on defense, soft on national security." Well, lo and behold, a group called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth raises questions about it, John Kerry is presented as a flip-flopper, and that conventional wisdom goes out the window. So I think, again, you're looking at Democrats saying, "This is a situation where we think we're in an OK place, and the rug is going to be pulled out from under us." It's is why you see Barack Obama being relatively hawkish in terms of foreign policy, saying, "We need direct diplomacy," saying, you know, "We need to focus back on Afghanistan." Barack Obama's certainly not saying, "We need to retreat within our borders." That's a very interesting change in the way that Democrats have handled foreign policy.
Careful. Just like on Jeopardy!, it has to be in the form of a question. Use the Cavuto (?) and you can say ****ing anything:
Cillizza caught up in a three way with Rush and Beck?
I heard he was caught up in a three way with Rush and Beck.
While Matt Drudge ran the video recorder and Dick Morris was sucking on somebody's toes....
Clams, Snoopy & Pete-- typical liberal foolishness. It's a good thing we don't depend on folks like you to protect and defend the USA, or to create jobs, or do much of anything else that is useful or productive.
Liberals think everything is a joke, or a joke should be made or people belittled with childish and asinine remarks.
Thank God for those in the USA who create the jobs, generate the new products and services, promote trade, take risks, and defend the USA and its institutions. To the losers who live in the USA, and take freedom for granted, one can only hope that your lives are as devoid of satisfaction as your ideas are devoid of originality or merit.
let's be honest folks...Kerry refused to open his COMBAT records..you all seem to think that his giving (basically) name, rank, and serial # is proof that he is a hero. Read his own book and learn how he got to be a swift boat skipper (he thought he would patrol China Beach (about as safe a place as one could be). When Adm. Zumwalt ordered the swifties up the rivers (where they were intended to be), your "Hero", in his own book, in his own words said "I didn't sign up for this"!! It doesn't take a genius to figure out his strategy for getting out..3 purple hearts and you can CHOOSE to go home!!! 245 swift boat vets said he falsified his records and Kerry refused to show his 'facts'. If he lied about Cambodia and that horrible man(Nixon), for "sending me here", I'll believe the true swiftboaters!!!!!
cstearns3921 -- Thank you for your truly uninformed opinion. You clearly don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.
By the way, which of his "combat records" aren't released? And exactly what was it he did that would be revealed by those records that all the people who were with him haven't already told us?
I don't expect an answer. Your type don't usually stick around to discuss, just show up to make baseless claims.
Doug Reese
Like you say, they usually "cut and run" after they make their claims.
Hue/Phu Bai Class of '69/70
let's be honest folks...Kerry refused to open his COMBAT records..
Actually, he did, and they chacked out.
Where is George W. Bush's DD214? Non-existent, that's where.
You have absolutely no clue whatsoever what I do in my personal life other than the few minutes I spend on occasion to post insignificant comments in the bowels of a website.
You have absolutely no clue how hard I have worked to give my wife and family a good home.
You have absolutely no clue how much the United States Constitution means to me.
You have absolutely no clue how how proud I am that I was born and raised in the U.S.A.
You have absolutely no clue what myself and my family do to honor and support my grandfather, a WWII combat veteran currently living out his waining days in a wheelchair.
You have no absolutely no clue what myself and my family do to support my older brother since he returned from Operation Desert Storm with a slew of mental problems, leaving him with great difficulty in reassimilating to life in the country he fought for.
All you have is one inane comment about a clueless member of the derelict and delinquent American media.
Therefore, you have absolutely no place whatsoever in personally broadbrushing me with your insulting impugnment of my patriotism, my integrity, my achievements in life, and my sense of responsibility as a citizen.
I will extend to you the decency and courtesy that you lack by refraining from insulting you or any aspect of your personal life in such a way.
Liberals think everything is a joke, or a joke should be made or people belittled with childish and asinine remarks.
Thank God for those in the USA who create the jobs, generate the new products and services, promote trade, take risks, and defend the USA and its institutions. To the losers who live in the USA, and take freedom for granted, one can only hope that your lives are as devoid of satisfaction as your ideas are devoid of originality or merit.
yeah, like that liberal Democrat Bill Gates! Take that, you loser!
Liberals think everything is a joke, or a joke should be made or people belittled with childish and asinine remarks.
You are joking, right...? How many more dumb Republican (another oxymoron) jokes and snide remarks about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have we had to endure? Maybe you don't have a lot of friends or don't get out much because the Republicans I know (in the real world) are just chock full of asolescent jocularity when it comes to criticizing liberals.
How many more dumb Republican (another oxymoron)
At the risk of being pedantic, that's not an oxymoron, that's a redundancy.
And where were you on 9/12/2001...I'm sorry which recruitment office.
He was hiding - just like George W. Bush was.....
Clams, Snoopy & Pete-- typical liberal foolishness. It's a good thing we don't depend on folks like you to protect and defend the USA, or to create jobs, or do much of anything else that is useful or productive.
Liberals think everything is a joke, or a joke should be made or people belittled with childish and asinine remarks.
Thank God for those in the USA who create the jobs, generate the new products and services, promote trade, take risks, and defend the USA and its institutions. To the losers who live in the USA, and take freedom for granted, one can only hope that your lives are as devoid of satisfaction as your ideas are devoid of originality or merit.
I think we found the latest reincarnation of Columbus1492/Science101...
I remember most of the Democrats being in favor of going after the people responsible for the murder of more than 3,000 Americans. It was the Republican administration that chose to divert the military from the real enemy in Afghanistan to an imagined enemy in Iraq.
Now after five years of war in Iraq the administration is saying they'll be bringing troops out of Iraq faster than they expected. But only because they need more troops in Afghanistan.
Maybe if the administration had not abandoned Afghanistan there would be nine fewer troops needed there today.
When will the Republican in the oval office be held accountable?
Now, now Clams, Snoopy, Worrier, and MMfA,
I'm not going to specifically defend Chris Cillizza but I wonder if we are allowing our hatred of corporate owned media to perhaps go to far?
This in no way lessens each of your critizism of him, but perhaps Chris did not point out the false accusations and baseless smears because he might have thought that he did not need too?
Mind you, he is a reporter and he should have done so, but I wonder if we are all being to hard on him? He is on Olbermann quite a bit and he does need to earn a paycheck, so he can only go so far?
I could be wrong of course, but to mix him in with the likes of Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh is, I think, taking it too far!
His not mentioning the SwiftBoat fools many distortions does not make him a sleezy corporate whore, lazy perhaps..........
"perhaps Chris did not point out the false accusations and baseless smears because he might have thought that he did not need too?"
Or perhaps Chris has his head buried so far in his own rear that he can't tell the difference between smearing and raising a question.
I agree with you.
What the SWBT did in 2004 ultimately resulted in another four year extension of Americas's downslide . However, John Kerry himself admitted that one of the reasons he lost is because he did not respond swiftly enough.
If the candidate himself feels that way, there was not a whole lot the media (including Cillizza) could do at that time.
The media at the time could have indeed reported the truth that the swiftboaters were baseless liars and were organized and funded to perpetrate the slander campaign they ran against Kerry whether or not Kerry at the time deemed their slimy lies worthy of the substantial effort it would take to mount a sufficient response or not. Obviously Kerry made the wrong choice in not confronting the smears of the swiftboat liars immediately or vigorously enough.
The Democrats should have been prepared for this, especially after the slimeball campaign used by Repugnican chickenhawk slimeball Saxbee Chambliss against Senator Max Cleland, a disabled US Army veteran and triple amputee because of the injuries he suffered in Vietnam.
That is a mistake that will not be made by Democrats again!
There has been a war chest full of funds collected by the campaigns and the Democratic 527s specifically for the purpose of answering the lie and smear campaigns the Repugnicants and their 527s have already begun.
All members of the media should have been ethical enough to investigate whether or not the swiftboaters were truthful or not. Very few were. Neither were most of them ethical enough to expose the lies of the Bush administration instead of just spreading their propaganda as "news".
whether they were true or not. That's the same as presenting them as fact.
Oh, that's baloney. The media was complicit in the character assassination of John Kerry. His military record was strong, and it was something that he could be proud of and that the Republicans distorted to turn it into a weakness.
The MSM should never had lent any credence to those stories, and they did.
"Barack Obama's certainly not saying, "We need to retreat within our borders." That's a very interesting change in the way that Democrats have handled foreign policy."
No Democrat has ever said anything like that, it's a complete fabrication. Isolationism coupled with belligerent unilateralism are Republican foreign policy positions, never have they been Democratic ones. Diplomacy and engagement have always been linchpins of Liberal foreign policy, there is no change in that.
Democrats seem to have a penchant for setting up events that eventually get the USA into war, or get the USA attacked. Their isolationism has, throughout history, turned relatively solvable problems into world conflicts. Look at the way WW II became such a huge conflict. Isolationists on the left didn't want to help England defend itself, Roosevelt ignored requests by Churchill for military aid for years. Only when we finally were attacked did Isolationism turn into realism that indeed there were enemies in the world ready, willing, and able to attach the USA.
In the 1990s, starting with the first attack on the World Trade Center, and subsequent attacks on USA interests and property, the Clinton administration did very little to attack the problem while it was small, so when Clinton left office, less than a year later we had the biggest attack on USA soil ever, aside of course from the two wars with Britain over our independence as a nation, and the predictable attack at Pearl Harbor.
It's so easy to take the position that Bush was wrong, that the USA is wrong, that efforts to fight the enemies of the west somewhere else other than on USA soil is a folly, but one thing is for sure, you are living in the USA relatively secure from a terrorist attack due in large part to the efforts of GW Bush, and the efforts of our state department, intelligence services, and defense, and not at all due to the whining by Liberals about how all this is costing a lot of money.
If we do get attacked again, the billions spent in Iraq and Afghanistan will pale in significance to the cost to the USA economy, and world economy and stability. The decision isn't between fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan or not, it's between dealing with the problem elsewhere, or dealing with it on our own soil. Your choice. Vote Obama if you think we can negotiate with terrorists. Chamberlain thought he negotiated with Hitler, prior to WW II.
hmm, and I thought Repubs were always blaming Democrats for getting us into wars. That was the old line...
Oh, and by the way, it was the frigging REPUBLICANS who were isolationists in the 30s, a-hole.
God, I hate right-wingers. They are just so friggin stupid.
Hal
You might want to consider getting your historical facts a little straighter before posting such long, rambling lectures on the failures of liberalism. It was NOT Democrats and leftists who opposed aiding the British prior to our entry into WWII. In fact, it was the liberal Democratic Roosevelt administration that proposed the Lend/Lease programs that would prove so instrumental in keeping the Brit's heads above water in the dark, early days of the war. It was the CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS who balked at our involvement in European affairs. It was the CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS who were the isolationists. It was the CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS who viewed Hitler and the Nazis as a useful bulwark against the Bolsheviks.
Look it up. It was in all the papers.
See, this is what happens when you learn your history by reading Anne Coulter books. You just end up embarrassing yourself.
the Clinton administration did very little to attack the problem...
Except during his tenure the perpetrators of the first WTC attack were arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned. Where's Osama?
You really don't know your history, do you? Republicans were the isolationists during WWI and WW2. You may want to pick up a book and read (you can read, right?)
Here, I thought I'd help you with your 1st paragraph which totally dispells your childish notion that Democrats are responsible for creating all the wars we fought.
The interventionist policies did not evaporate with Allied victory in World War II. The Cold War and decline of the non-interventionist Old Right, replaced by the ardently anti-communist New Right of William F. Buckley, Jr., made interventionism the US foreign policy for the rest of the century.
Today, non-interventionists argue that the United States is far removed from its earlier history of non-intervention.
They point to both Republican and Democratic presidents who, since the 1950s, have often used intervention as a tactic of foreign policy, including:
Donno if bringing up the swifties is really good for the conservative game plan. As several examples of conservative thought in this forum have shown. A certain percentage still believe the swifties are up right and right about Kerry. Hopeless cases, no matter how many times their shot down they still come back next time without any apparent changes in attitude or output. Most I think look upon the swifties with jaundice and remember the media just standing by. Now they bray anytime some comment could be twisted to show somebody isn't giving Yohnny the respect that they say he should be given. Its somehow an insult to his mostly undocumented and unexamined military military career.
Every time they schreech about disrespect for McIcky some of us remember their silience and abscence for Kerry. Can't say with any accuracy how many people are feeling this way, but roughly half the nation did vote for him.
The Swift Boaters that served with Kerry questioned his record. In my opinion, Kerry's speech after returning from Vietnam was enough to identify him as a partisan hack, and from the nature of his wanna be political aspirations, I think the speech he gave was prepared by Kennedy's staff, and not by John Kerry, even though he convinced himself that he was a great speech writer with a knowledge of "Jengus" Khan (his pronounciation pretty much gave anyone with a clue the idea that Kerry was basically uninformed and not terribly bright).
A more ridiculous travesty was that fake document prepared on a word processor (with proportional spacing) that Dan Rather reported as factual. It was a story so good in Rather's mind that he didn't really want to check it out.
John Kerry is no war hero, he's just a self-righteous lothario living off other people's money and trying to polish his own questionable record of heroism and combat at every opportunity. He's a has been.
Also, all the liberals need to separate the anti-Kerry advertisements from the book Unfit for Command, published by Kerry's fellow swiftboaters. Advertising is always overstated, anyone who believes ads are 100% truthful needs therapy, but the book was a report by those who served with Kerry, and to date, few if any of the reports in the book have been refuted successfully, or refuted at all.
Any more news about Kerry is a waste of time, he is a non-issue.
None of the swiftboat liars "served with Kerry".
Those who did serve with Kerry verified the voracity of Kerry's medals.
What they hated about Kerry was that he had the courage to testify before Congress - so they lied about his service. None of them had any first hand knowledge about Kerry's actions in Nam. None "served with him" - on his boat or even in his squadron and most not even at the same time Kerry served.
"The Swift Boaters that served with Kerry questioned his record."
No, they lied about his record.
A more ridiculous travesty was that fake document prepared on a word processor (with proportional spacing) that Dan Rather reported as factual. It was a story so good in Rather's mind that he didn't really want to check it out.
There was no evidence that they were fake. In fact, every contention the right made about them-- superscripts, MS Word, whatever-- was REFUTED.
The problem with the documents was that they could not be VERIFIED, not that they were false.
I know-- distinctions like this are a little too tough for the Righties to handle.
and the funny thing is, this "fake document on a word processor" was one of only two documents which proved that Bush did ANY time in the guard ...
the other was a document that he used taxpayer monies to have his teeth fixed/cleaned ... another "elite" sucking up taxpayer money where he could have Senator Grandpa and oilman Daddy pay the bill ...
Mr. Rogers,
You sir, are a damned idiot. You know, I can respect conservatives who base their beliefs on fact. There is nothing wrong with adhering to ones principles and beliefs, when you arrive at them by being being intellectually honest. You have not showed one shred of credibility in this area. Everything you opine here is based on unsubstantiated bullsh!t which undoubtedly some right wing radio jockey told you. Do yourself and the rest of us a favor and come with principled arguments rooted in reality. It's either that or remember to take your Clozaril.
In the HALROGERS version of the Constitution there is no guarantee of free speech. In your earlier post you gave us a rousing speech about how veterans protect our freedoms and in your recent post you attack Kerry for using his right to speak freely after defending and protecting his country.
You are a real piece of work.
You've embraced the bedwetter inside you.
Good for you!
he's just a self-righteous lothario living off other people's money and trying to polish his own questionable record of heroism and combat at every opportunity...
Sounds like you're describing John McMaverick.
H.A.L. 2000....this may suprise you but Mr. Khans' first named was actually CHINGGIS so Sen. Kerry may have pronounced it properly which makes you look a little foolish. I suggest you keep intellects out of this stream and stick to facts which I am sure you may find one along the way.
P.S. Mr. 2000, I know you realize that I am joking, to quote a well-informed person, "Liberals think everything is a joke...." Hal 7/14/08
I suggest you visit this site every evening at 1:00am and post your thoughts of the day. Then we will all be briefed about the Con talking points from the previous day.
Hal, precious few of them were anywhere NEAR Kerry in Vietnam, much less "served" with him.
Please read this letter from some who really did serve with him. Granted it isn't a sound bite, and actually takes some time (it's 14 pages), but it refutes much of what you are thinking/promoting regarding Kerry's service in Vietnam.
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/FINALPICKENSLETTERFROMCREW.pdf After reading that, others here may find the following link interesting. It is mind boggling how this guy can read that letter, and come up with the following:http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13492
Doug ReeseMr. Reese,
I think it is wonderful what you have contributed here on this issue. There are some who continue to refuse the believe the truth. A poster here named AnotherAmerican, loves to hold on to the misinformation. He acutally bragged a few weeks ago about how he essentially debated you to a draw on this issue. I have tried to explain to the ignorant how the word of a man who was right beside you in war is a hell of a lot more real than one who heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy in another platoon, boat, squad, division, whatever. As a fellow Vietnam combat veteran I'm sure you know this and your attempt to prove it does not fall totally on deaf ears. We take solice int he fact that when we die we know we were right on this one.
Prince,
9th Infantry 1966-67 operating out of Tan An. 1968 First Brigade 5th infantry "Red Diamond" I got to play in Quang Tri too. Wasn't it great fun?
AChris -- Before I was an advisor, serving with/near you-know-who (1969), I was with the 9th, working out of Tan An (1968).
Doug Reese
AChris -- Before I was an advisor, serving with/near you-know-who (1969), I was with the 9th Div, working out of Tan An (1968).
Doug Reese
The Swift Boaters that served with Kerry questioned his record.
That is a lie, also. The SBVT liars said they "served with" Kerry. Actually, they served "at the same time as" Kerry. They were nowhere near Kerry during that time. The men who actually "served with" kerry on the same boats as Kerry backed him up unanimously.
Hal, you really should invest in reading comprehension classes. Or put a "Fox blocker" on your cable TV. Either or both will increase your intelligence exponentially.
Greetings from Vietnam . . . . and speaking of Chu Lai, and re-opening, it's an international airport up there now, Prince. No kidding.
As for Anotheramerican, well, I missed that comment. Where was it, AChris?.
Doug Reese
PS. The Rockpile is almost history -- strip mining is doing it in.
Hey Doug,
I forget in which thread our discussions took place that is being referrenced here. If I remember correctly someone said something derogatory about me and referenced you (very nicely I might add,) at the same time. So I took the time to respond.
I remember we had many frank discussions and also aired our different opinions over a lot of different claims by the SBVTs. It seemed to me that most of our discussions came down to the point where one could either believe Kerry version of events or one could believe the SBVTs. Obviously we disagreed. You may have a different recollection of our discussions.
Time flies. Take care.
You're precious.
one could either believe Kerry version of events or one could believe the SBVTs
Let's see, one could either beleve the Kerry version based on govt. documents and undisputed FACTS, or one could believe a group made up of paid professional LIARS.
You prefer to believe liars. That's sad.
Fog,
If I remember correctly, many of the facts are disputed. But thanks for the term of endearment. :-)
Hello AA,
Please read the link I provided (the first one), then report back here with the SBV"t" version of that incident, the one for which Kerry was awarded the Silver Star -- pronto :)
Doug Reese
If I remember correctly, many of the facts are disputed.
You remember incorrectly. The facts were (and still are) supported by eyewitnesses and official contemporaneous documents.
The Swift Boat Liars were not supported. Not one of their claims was found to be accurate.
Not one.
If you can refute them with actual facts instead of lies, no problem. You haven't presented a single fact yet, just anecdotes and opinions. I know why you do that, the facts are not on your side, so all you have is lies to present, hoping some journalist interested in balance rather than objective fact will report lies and truth as two sides of the story.
Nice try, but you haven't done a thing yet.
I can't think of an instance where it has occurred. Much less what a left wing talking point might be. Not allowed in the MSM.
PS, K Obermann might throw out some leftwing meat on occasion, but he's operating solo. To properly do talking points two sources can work, but its much easier when the sources are greater than three