You're attempts to propagandize the history and facts to fit your disgruntled agenda puts you square in the middle of the those attempting to discredit this site, Jim and many of it's long time posters.
|
Posted on 07/02/2004 9:01:26 AM PDT by The Shrew
INDEPENDENT BIAS
THE PLACE FOR UNBIASED INSIGHT
"Much of the media is helping hamstring our efforts by highlighting casualties, ignoring accomplishments, and generally conveying the sense that we can’t possibly succeed." - Scott Swett
An Interview with Scott Swett
Director of the Free Republic Network
By: Rich Bowden
· R. Bowden, Independent Bias (Feedback)
Rich Bowden: With national security high on the agenda in the lead-up to the November elections, which candidate do you consider has the better record in this area and why?
Scott Swett: It seems clear that the most immediate threat to America’s national security is international terrorism. President Bush has taken forceful action against terrorist networks and regimes that support them during his first term. His administration seems committed to continuing this policy regardless of whether it polls well or is supported by the media. By contrast, Senator Kerry has a long history of working with individuals and organizations hostile to American interests, dating back to 1971 when as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War he supported virtually all of the positions advocated by North Vietnam and the Vietcong. It is hard to imagine that America’s current enemies would find President Kerry the same sort of implacable adversary that President Bush has proven to be.
RB: With respect to the ongoing crisis in Iraq, how well has the Bush administration handled the situation in your view?
Swett: Militarily, quite well. Politically, somewhat less so. The administration has been slow to make the case that fighting jihadis in Iraq is vastly preferable to tracking them down after they blow up American shopping centers. The terror networks have been forced to concentrate their efforts on destabilizing Iraq, which has reduced their ability to organize major strikes elsewhere. The process of helping the Iraqis shoulder more of the counter-insurgency burden is coming along, but could be explained and publicized more effectively. That Saddam’s thugs are no longer in a position to murder 30,000+ Iraqis per year is also worthy of mention. In defense of the Bush administration, they have to deal with predominantly hostile media coverage. A large number of mainstream journalists and broadcasters do not want to see American success in Iraq if it means another 4 years of Republican control of the White House. It is very difficult to get positive stories covered under such circumstances.
RB: The administration has been very keen to portray the recent Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal as the fault of the individual servicemen and woman, denying claims that orders for the abuse came from further up the chain of command. Where do you think the blame should lie?
Swett: The military was already investigating the abuses before they became public, which rules out a systemic cover-up. Also, the fact that the abuses were committed at around 2 or 3 in the morning shows that those involved knew they had something to hide. There seems to have been a serious failure of command that reaches as high as Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, but claims that the abuses were authorized at higher levels appear to be mostly wishful thinking on the part of the administration’s opponents.
RB: How do you react to last week’s draft statement of the 9/11 Commission stating that no evidence exists of any link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda?
Swett: First of all, the phrasing of this question misrepresents what the 9/11 Commission actually said. They DID find links between Saddam Hussein’s regime and Al-Qaeda, including several contacts between Iraqi intelligence officers and al Qaeda terrorists. There was also a meeting between Osama bin Laden and a senior Iraqi intelligence official in 1994. The commission’s “no links” statement was far more limited in scope -- they found no evidence that Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks, something the Administration had never claimed in the first place. Since the 9/11 attacks represent the extent of the commission’s charter, the question of how closely Saddam’s Iraq worked with the terror network remains open.
RB: In an interview with Fox News on 1st May 2003 you answered a question concerning peace groups, “The war was popular, it was successful, their efforts against it failed. Probably their best bet is to move on to something else and hope everybody forgets what they stood for this time." Over a year later with the war against the Iraqi insurgents still escalating and the latest CNN/USA Today opinion poll showing 54% of people believing the war to be a mistake, do you still stand by your comments?
Swett:Yes. Those remarks were made in the context of whether the American antiwar movement could whip up enough domestic opposition to prevent us from taking out Saddam’s regime. Their efforts to do this did in fact fail. Now they are working to prevent America from winning the low-intensity conflict required to stabilize Iraq. As I noted above, much of the media is helping hamstring our efforts by highlighting casualties, ignoring accomplishments, and generally conveying the sense that we can’t possibly succeed. I believe that as we increasingly hand over control to Iraqis, and as the insurgents are suppressed, it will be much harder to convince the public that our work there was in vain.
RB: As a subject that has received much scrutiny lately with regard to detainees at the now-infamous Abu Ghraib prison, do you agree that, in special circumstances, the Geneva Convention rules for treatment of prisoners should not apply?
Swett: Well, the Geneva Convention only applies to members of the military of those nations who have signed the treaty. Protections are provided to “combatants,” defined as “members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war.” As the convention notes, “other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections.”
So, Iraqi soldiers captured during the initial conflict would appear to qualify, whereas the Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists operating currently would not. I think that is a reasonable distinction.
RB: Should all world governments who are signatories to the Geneva Convention be able to apply these circumstances to soldiers/combatants of every nationality including Americans?
Swett:I assume you mean “all national governments.” The Geneva Convention is essentially a contract. Clearly if any “special circumstances” apply to one signatory, they must apply to all. I don’t find the arguments for such special circumstances persuasive, however.
RB: President Bush, like President Clinton before him, has been dogged by claims of draft dodging. Critics have claimed that he used family connections to avoid serving his country in Vietnam. Do you agree with this assessment and do you believe it will be an issue in the upcoming elections?
Swett: It seems rather remarkable to apply the “draft dodger” label to someone who flew F-102 fighters in the National Guard. Such terminology far better fits President Bush’s predecessor, who skipped out on his ROTC obligations and went to London to protest the Vietnam War. The charge of “using family connections” is difficult to either prove or disprove at this point. Certainly these matters will continue be an issue in the campaign, as long as the president’s opposition perceives them as useful. The truth or falsehood of the claims doesn’t enter into that calculation.
RB: In April 1971, Senator John Kerry’s testimony to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations detailed war crimes committed by American troops in Vietnam, which he argued were committed “with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command”. Do you believe Kerry was telling the truth?
Swett: No. As a leader of Vietnam Veteran Against the War, Kerry charged the U.S. military with committing systematic genocide against Vietnamese civilians. Many members of the VVAW turned out to be outright frauds, including Executive Secretary Al Hubbard, who despite his claims to have been a wounded Air Force officer and pilot was really a sergeant who was never assigned to Vietnam at all. The stories of other VVAW members at the Jane Fonda financed “Winter Soldier Investigation” cited by Kerry, while imaginative, were worded so as to be virtually impossible to verify or disprove. In the 33 years since, historians, journalists and military investigators have been unable to verify any of these accounts. The VVAW’s false charges helped smear the reputations of an entire generation of American troops. Kerry and his cohorts were also remarkably uninterested in the primary cause of civilian deaths in Vietnam –- Vietcong terrorism. After Congress cut off all military aid to our former South Vietnamese allies, the victorious communists went on to slaughter millions of people throughout Southeast Asia.
RB: Many commentators have likened the present conflict in Iraq to the war in Vietnam and maintain that mistakes made in Vietnam are re-occurring. Do you agree with this opinion?
Swett: Not entirely. During the Vietnam War, we neglected to destroy the North Vietnamese army, occupy Hanoi, and imprison Ho Chi Minh, so there are obvious limits to the comparison. On the other hand, a major factor in our withdrawal from Southeast Asia and the subsequent defeat of our former allies was the success of the Left in undermining support for the war, a result they achieved primarily by smearing American troops as mass murderers. Today’s leftists are using similar tactics as they try to prevent America from creating a functioning democracy in the Middle East. The Abu Ghraib prison scandal was perfect for this purpose, which is why the New York Times splashed it across their front page for 43 out of 47 days. As in the Vietnam era, I expect the war for public opinion to be the decisive factor, rather than military operations in the field.
Scott Swett is a director of the Free Republic Network, an Internet-based non-profit that supports grassroots conservative activism. During the U.S. invasion of Iraq last spring, the FR Network helped coordinate "support the troops" rallies in hundreds of locations across the country. Mr. Swett represented this effort during an April 1, 2003 appearance on Fox & Friends, noting that an overwhelming majority of media coverage was given to anti-war protests -- which he termed "peace riots" -- while ignoring the 150,000 people who had attended pro-America rallies the previous weekend.
Early this year, Mr. Swett began researching the "war crimes" propaganda campaign that successfully undermined public support for America's defense of South Vietnam. The result of this work is WinterSoldier.com, a web site designed as a central repository of information for writers and researchers investigating the actions of John Kerry, Vietnam Veterans Against the War and others during the Vietnam era. The site quickly attracted the interest of Vietnam veterans, hundreds of whom have written in to share their own experiences. Other researchers have now joined the effort, and continue to provide new material and opinion articles.
The Independent Bias staff would like to give special thanks to Mr. Bruce Kesler for helping schedule this interview and a thank you to Mr. Swett for speaking with IB
The story of Todd Brendan Fahey is much more interesting. Check it out when you can!
You're attempts to propagandize the history and facts to fit your disgruntled agenda puts you square in the middle of the those attempting to discredit this site, Jim and many of it's long time posters.
|
LOL!
|
I soooooo avoid that place. Can you send me some snippets to laza*ANTI-SPAMBOT*mataz*NOSPAM*@yahoo.com, removing some of the Robot Spam Stoppers, of course...?
|
Thanks for bumping my interview thread, though.
|
If it can't be demonstrated that the shooters had anything to do with VVAW, then listing the shooting on a web site about John Kerry is reaching for a low-credibility hatchet that you need not throw, and that hurts your own case more than it hurts Kerry. That's just the sort of thing you don't want when you know that the pro-Kerry media is looking for any excuse to discredit what is on that site. If they can say, "Aww, it's full of tin-foil-hat stuff," they will. Right now they can't say that. Let's hope it stays that way. There's enough there already to sink Kerry ten times over. It seems to me that piling on with stuff that can't be shown to be true will wreck what is there.
A perfect example was your own quibble concerning the "Treaty of Paris." Imagine you were some media liberal and you thought you had just nailed this Scott Swett guy with an error of fact on wintersoldier.com. But he comes right back with the encyclopedia reference that calls it The Treaty of Paris. If he can't do that, he's dead. And he can't do that with the Stennis shooting, because there is no proof of any link between that shooting and the VVAW. There may well have been one, but without proof-in-hand, he would be skewered by the media as a conspiracy nut if he brought it up.
Treaty of Paris...
|
If it can't be demonstrated that the shooters had anything to do with VVAW, then listing the shooting on a web site about John Kerry is reaching for a low-credibility hatchet that you need not throw, and that hurts your own case more than it hurts Kerry. That's just the sort of thing you don't want when you know that the pro-Kerry media is looking for any excuse to discredit what is on that site. If they can say, "Aww, it's full of tin-foil-hat stuff," they will. Right now they can't say that. Let's hope it stays that way. There's enough there already to sink Kerry ten times over. It seems to me that piling on with stuff that can't be shown to be true will wreck what is there. A perfect example was your own quibble concerning the "Treaty of Paris." Imagine you were some media liberal and you thought you had just nailed this Scott Swett guy with an error of fact on wintersoldier.com. If he can't do that, he's dead. And he can't do that with the Stennis shooting, because there is no proof of any link between that shooting and the VVAW. There may well have been one, but without proof-in-hand, he would be skewered by the media as a conspiracy nut if he brought it up.
|
One would think your sudden shift from bitching about WinterSoldier.com to begging me to publish your wild-eyed Stennis theory there would have been humiliating enough. But no, you have to highlight for anybody who wasn't paying attention just how little effort you put into checking out "Treaty of Paris" before firing off a completely bogus claim about it.
Okay, let's do this. Go to Google and search for "Treaty of Paris" "Vietnam" and "1973". Better yet, here's a link to make it easier. Notice that there are about 2,000 hits. Have someone read you as many as you like.
An intellectually honest person would apologize at this point for the false accusation. I think we can skip that part.
Still, all is not lost. However inadvertantly, you have demonstrated yet another reason to locate a serious research project somewhere other than FR -- to keep yahoos such as yourself from urinating all over it.
I leave you now to spew your malicious nonsense as long as the moderators will permit.
You don't even have the grace to be embarrassed? One would think your sudden shift from bitching about WinterSoldier.com to begging me to publish your wild-eyed Stennis theory there would have been humiliating enough.
Okay, let's do this. Go to Google and search for "Treaty of Paris" "Vietnam" and "1973". Better yet, here's a link to make it easier. Notice that there are about 2,000 hits. Have someone read you as many as you like.
|
Saber, I disagree with about 80% of what you post on FR in general, but have respected the way in which you go about advocating your position. The ability to stick to the facts and remain impersonal is a trait that all freepers aspire to, yet not all attain.
What I "get" is that you are offering your editorial decisionmaking services on a pro bono basis to a web site that you had no hand in creating and do not run. When that happens here on FR, Jim will sometimes take a suggestion, and other times he will say he doesn't like the idea and we aren't going to do it. For the smarter people, that is the end of the matter. But there are those who think that the next step is to start threads to advise people that Jim Robinson is not taking their free advice. You and I both know what happens to those guys. Most of us understand that that is how the world works.
Mr. Swett cannot affect what you say on FR, but he is certainly free to keep your free advice off of a web site where he calls the shots. I don't understand what could be mysterious about that principle. Your choices seem to be to rant your head off on FR, start your own web site, or forget about it.
It seems to me that a decision to restrict the content of a web site to known, verifiable facts -- and to not engage there in speculative activites, is perfectly defensible. You may not agree with it, but is not unheard of for a publication to do that. When starting a newspaper, one must choose whether to aim for distribution at the news stand, or in the supermarket. There is a place for both.
There is also a difference between libraries and television sets. Television is this endless stream of stuff going by. But if you don't record it at the time you see it, you may have a heck of a time ever finding it again. FR is like television. Somewhere around here there is an excellent compendium of engineering speculation about the space shuttle disaster a few years ago. But it went by, and I didn't record it, and I'll be damned if I can find it now. Using FR as a library is very, very difficult... especially now that most things get excerpted. You ask why someone would use a different venue to build a library, and I think the answer is obvious. You are absolutely right that if what was needed was a forum, we already have one.
Since we do already have one, and since forums are an excellent venue for "rooting out more info than a few guys with a website," you could make a contribution by starting and maintaining some threads on the subject of the Stennis shooting. Complaining that some other guy is not doing that just seems like noise to me. The other guy already has a project: he's building a library of stuff that is already known. If your project is to snipe at him from the sidelines while he does it, then I think you need a new project.
They always do that. It's their job to sell Democratic candidates to the people, and to hide unpleasant facts about Democratic candidates from the people. We've all been plugging away at that for years now, and we're starting to win. Hooray for us.
Also, while you've been on here sniping at him, Mr. Swett has been busy doing something new that will be a little harder for the media to ignore. So if you are going to solve the Stennis shooting, you had best get to work. Mr. Swett has his new thing on the way. We all look forward to seeing yours. Let's hope it consists of more than free advice on what everybody else should do.
It's nice to see this thread turn into a debate about facts and timelines, rather than the personal attacks that had been going on before. Saber, I disagree with about 80% of what you post on FR in general, but have respected the way in which you go about advocating your position. The ability to stick to the facts and remain impersonal is a trait that all freepers aspire to, yet not all attain.
|
What I "get" is that you are offering your editorial decisionmaking services on a pro bono basis to a web site that you had no hand in creating and do not run. When that happens here on FR, Jim will sometimes take a suggestion, and other times he will say he doesn't like the idea and we aren't going to do it. For the smarter people, that is the end of the matter. But there are those who think that the next step is to start threads to advise people that Jim Robinson is not taking their free advice. You and I both know what happens to those guys. Most of us understand that that is how the world works. It seems to me that a decision to restrict the content of a web site to known, verifiable facts -- and to not engage there in speculative activites, is perfectly defensible. You may not agree with it, but is not unheard of for a publication to do that. When starting a newspaper, one must choose whether to aim for distribution at the news stand, or in the supermarket. There is a place for both. There is also a difference between libraries and television sets. Television is this endless stream of stuff going by. But if you don't record it at the time you see it, you may have a heck of a time ever finding it again. FR is like television. Somewhere around here there is an excellent compendium of engineering speculation about the space shuttle disaster a few years ago. But it went by, and I didn't record it, and I'll be damned if I can find it now. Using FR as a library is very, very difficult... especially now that most things get excerpted. You ask why someone would use a different venue to build a library, and I think the answer is obvious. You are absolutely right that if what was needed was a forum, we already have one. Since we do already have one, and since forums are an excellent venue for "rooting out more info than a few guys with a website," you could make a contribution by starting and maintaining some threads on the subject of the Stennis shooting. Complaining that some other guy is not doing that just seems like noise to me.
|
Why, thank you. Those of us doing volunteer work to sink the candidacy of Senator Kerry never have enough critics. If you know of any more, send them our way.
So you're a critic-at-large. That's pretty cool.
We thought so, too. That's why it's set up that way. Now if you are going to peddle the anti-freeper hoo-hah about how we're all at loggerheads here, and Jim hates our guts and we're out to sink the forum, fuggedaboutit. All of us are active posters here, he knows what we're up to, and the original idea for having separate corporations was his. FreeRepublic.net is his domain, and he points it at our site. 'Nuf said? The day we all get banned you'll know we're on the outs with Jim. Until then, don't listen to Roberta, or her flying monkeys. Better you should just relax and enjoy.
My business relationship with it is that I take time out from my business to work on it. My professional relationship with it is that I know how to do that stuff, and so I do it. We're you hoping to hear that I get paid? Hah. You think Scott Swett gets paid for it? Hah. That's why we need more critics... to urge us to do more of this stuff. We live for criticism. (Actually, we do. There is nothing more heartwarming than the emails we get from the Forces Of Peace, calling us Nazis.)
I am not going to debate your editorial hoo-hah. I do not care what you have to say on the subject. If you think something needs to be publicized that isn't, have at it. We're doing something else, and we don't have time to do your stuff for you.
Of course I do. You should have seen the one I did the other night. It was so bad I reported myself for abuse. Suffice to say it was on a thread about an exploding outhouse.
Yes, that is correct. I do technical work on the site, for which I receive criticism from various critics-at-large. Mr. Swett also has a business relationship with the site. He spends countless hours researching things, filing FOIA requests to get more, writing articles, and he also spent several hundred dollars of his own money to buy Kerry's hard-to-get book from eBay. For this he receives criticism from various critics-at-large.
You missed a couple. KerryLied.com also goes there, as does freeper.org, fondaboy.com, www.rightwingconspiracy.net, nickdanger.net, and Rightalk.com. And there's another one coming.
Absolutely not. In the last year I have probably spent $30,000 worth of billable hours on various things associated with the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, including FRN, the anti-Kerry sites, intelmemo.com, and I still owe the guys doing the National Day of Vigilance Against Terror some stuff.
My relationship with Hurricane Electric is that they send me bills for the hosting and the bandwidth, and I send them money. I am compensated in the form of criticism from various critics-at-large. Oh... they also sent me a Christmas card last year. "Seasons Greetings from your friends at Hurricane Electric," I think it said. I got one just like it from my insurance agent. Make of that what you will.
I hope this answers all your questions. I really don't have time for any more of this.
I hope this answers all your questions. I really don't have time for any more of this. In the last year I have probably spent $30,000 worth of billable hours on various things... Billable hours in what field?My relationship with Hurricane Electric is that they send me bills for the hosting and the bandwidth, and I send them money. I am compensated in the form of criticism from various critics-at-large. Oh... they also sent me a Christmas card last year. "Seasons Greetings from your friends at Hurricane Electric," I think it said. I got one just like it from my insurance agent. Make of that what you will.
|
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.