Boehlert himself: "Why the Swift Boat Hoax Still Matters!"

[whometense]

Eric Boehlert, author of Lapdogs, posts at Crooks and Liars:

(Eric Boehlert, author of the new book "Lapdogs," writes an exclusive piece for C&L. Hopefully, he will become a regular contributor on the site.)

Sunday's New York Times revisited the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacks against Sen. John Kerry and highlighted how Kerry is still working hard to clear his name and knock down any questions that remain about his stellar service in Vietnam. Kerry's not the only one nursing wounds from the Swifty attacks. For lots of people the phrase 'Swift Boat' has become synonymous with 'Florida Recount'; a dreadful, hard-to-relive chapter in campaign history, in which Republicans played bare-knuckle hardball and the press pretty much let them get away with it.

I devote an entire chapter in my new book: "Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush" to the Swift Boat hoax, not only detailing the absurdity of the allegations, but to chronicle how the press walked away from its traditional role as campaign referee and simply threw up its hands, announcing it was impossible to tell which side--Kerry or the Swifties--was telling the truth. That, despite the fact the Swifties stepped forward 35-years after-the-fact and without a single military document to back up their wild claims. (Every U.S. Navy record backed up Kerry's version of events.)

Thanksfully, over months and years the Swifties' most serious charges of faked wounds and bogus medals have proven to be fictitious; a political dirty trick. Yet thanks in large part to the press' initial timidity during those dog days of summer 2004, the Swifties remain lurking today, waiting for the next opportunity to pounce. For instance, Swifty ring leader and chronic fabricator John O'Neill recently sent out a nationwide fund-raising letter on behalf of a Vermont Republican running for the U.S. Senate. Just this week the Associated Press, profiling James Webb and his effort to unseat Virginia Republican Sen. George Allen, noted the issue of military service could become a campaign issue. (Webb was a decorated Marine; Allen never served.) The AP reported, "A top Allen adviser, Christopher J. LaCivita, was the mastermind behind Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group of Vietnam veterans who made unsubstantiated allegations challenging Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's record of wartime heroism."

And we now know that right after the 2004 victory Bush's brother Jeb personally thanked the factually-challenged Swifties, gushing in a January 2005 letter, "I simply cannot express in words how much I value their willingness to stand up against John Kerry." ...please click here to read the entire article

permalink11:13:09 AM

[karynnj]

1. Great article

Adam Nougourney wrote that the convention was 50% Vietnam - so he's one of the roots of that. I really think that he is more dishonest than Jason Blair, whose articles were at least true, though plagerized.

His article today is annoying as well. It's on the problem that Senators running in 2004 have with Iraq vs the governors. A minor problem is that he joins Edwards and Kerry at the hip on all their position now and in the past. (Neglecting that Edwards was a co-sponsor, Kerry voted reluctantly with a very concerned floor speech, Edwards was for going to war when we did and Kerry wasn't, that now although both are for withdrawing this year, Kerry has lead with a plan and Edwards has spoken vaguely.) The bigger problem is that he explains the positions of many of the candidates all in non-emotional language. Then in the last paragraph, he says that John Kerry derided John McCain, saying this was the wrong war.

As the two men were likely not in the same room - how is Kerry having a different position deriding McCain. I HATE ADAM!!!!!

Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/02/washington/02senators.html

[whometense]

2. I join you in your hatred.

He shades everything in a way that you often can't flat out accuse him of lying, but the effect is the same (or worse) than if he'd just lied. 50% about Vietnam, huh? I guess we know where he pulled that number form.

The afterspin on Kerry's convention speech was astounding. At the time he delivered it I loved it because it was so forward looking, positive, and hopeful. When I heard the pundits talking about it a week later it was like they'd been in a different room, even though they were universally blown away by how good it was at the time.

[karynnj]

9. I found a use for my anger

I wrote a letter to the NYT public editor about today's piece (arguing 2004 is useless). There is no excuse for making it Kerry vs McCain and definately nothing in Kerry's words that justifies "derided". Also, in 2 years of listening to Kerry, he is exceptional in not ridiculing others' positions.

I agree with you on Kerry's speech - it was wonderful and I heard the same thing as you. The same with the convention itself. Leading up to it the talk was that people had there problems with Bush, but Kerry needed to introduce himself as a possible President, which is exactly what he did. From the comments of Max Cleland, Alston the black minister who was on Kerry's boat to his daughters, Kerry got incredible character references. The tone was so hopeful and so enthusiastic about wanting to fix what was wrong.

It is disgusting that they have for many people rewitten history.
Anyway, I wrote:

"Adam Nougourney in this article continues the snarky reporting that he has consistently given from at least the beginning of 2004 to Senator Kerry. This article discusses the difficulties that Senators have because they have had to vote on Iraq. All the positions various Senators have taken and the drawbacks are discussed dispassionately. He also wrote the opinions of some mentioned Governors. This tone changes abruptly in the last paragraph when he writes:

Mr. Kerry derided Mr. McCain for his continued support for the war, saying: "He's dead wrong. I think it's the wrong war in the wrong place. We've paid a huge price for this in the Middle East."

None of the other politicians are played against each other. Obviously Mr Nougourney asked Senator Kerry about Senator McCain's position, which is the opposite of Kerry's. Derides is a very charged word - defined in a dictionary as to ridicule or treat with contempt. I see nothing in Kerry's answer that ridicules anyone, Kerry is just saying he disagrees. I assume if you asked McCain, he would have said that Kerry's plan was dead wrong. Clearly the intent is to portray Kerry as obnoxious to McCain.

[whometense]

11. That's a really great letter!

I especially love your last paragraph.

I hope they print it.

[blm]

3. Please post in GD -

I'm going to ask everyone to use the word HOAX.

[whometense]

5. done.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2659008

[ProSense]

4. Excellent! Thanks!

Why is everyone determined to lie or distort? I'm glad Boehlert addresses this:

Fact: During his nearly 60-minutes convention address, Kerry made less than five references to his military service. By comparison, he devoted 19 paragraphs of his speech to buttressing national security, nine paragraphs to improving the economy, and six to addressing health insurance woes. But just one month later, journalists, echoing the talking points of Republicans, insisted the convention was all about Vietnam, which then somehow made it okay for partisan who had remained silent for 35 years to suddenly question Kerry's medal-winning service.

I went back and checked: Kerry only said the word Vietnam twice in his entire speech.

[whometense]

6. This one slays me too:

In a sense they were right, it was fair game--just as questions about Bush's military service were fair game. But the Swifties never played fair-- they couldn't even keep their stories straight. As their dishonesty become obvious, journalists never adjusted their coverage. Instead, pundits and reporters diverted their eyes from the porous, poorly constructed smear campaign and focused the blame on the Kerry campaign. That saved reporters the trouble of labeling Vietnam veterans as liars (not to mention Bush's father, wife, and political advisor Karl Rove who all publicly signed off on the contents of the Swifty campaign), which in turn would have unleashed the fury of right-wing press critics. It also kept the Swift Boat storyline on familiar ground, one of tactics and process—were Kerry's consultants too slow in responding? Was their coordination between the Swifts and the Bush campaign, etc.? All of that should have been secondary to the central and pressing question—Were any of these allegations true?

:banghead:

[ProSense]

8. Yup! They are

some evil bastards!

which in turn would have unleashed the fury of right-wing press critics

[Blaukraut]

7. good post

It makes me furious to know how the media enabled the swiftie scum by turning a blind eye to their lies and CONTINUE peddling them even after they turned out to be lies.
Considering how we have the same media in place we did then, what can we - what can JK do to avoid this same dilemma? Who in the mainstream media is going to report the truth?

[karynnj]

10. For broadcast media,

boycotting the advertisers worked in 2004 against Sinclair. The problem is how do you organize something for less obvious provocations. A less drastic possibility is LTTE. It seems that they were concerned with an outcry from the RW if they declared the SBVT what they were. Maybe they need to be afraid of us attacking them. (In that case, we at least would have been insisting they do the right thing.

If it is that they are corporate interests - hitting their subscription levels and their advertisers may have an impact.