An Interview with Scott Swett - Director of the Free Republic Network

"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

Well, since I can't reply to Saber, I guess I will be content to talk to myself. I wonder what organizations are not to be argued with on FR, besides FR itself? I can certainly understand the mods and/or Jim disallowing potshots at FRE itself, but as has been pointed out on this thread and several others, FR and FRN are separate organizations.

While some of Saber's points on this thread are posts with which I disagree, they should be answered or ignored. And everything left to stand lest it looks like favoritism, OR that the shots came too close for comfort.

I've been following this, and saw no profanity, thread stalking or (serious) personal attacks on behalf of Saber. In fact, while I may have worded some of the replies differently, I think that Nick Danger was holding his own quite well! Now, it looks like someone from the Department of Whining and Complaining went sobbing to the mods. (That Dept reference courtesy of a previous jerk boss of mine...) And for no good reason!

Actions like this serve ONLY to strengthen what the AFers continually bleat about.

I have all the empathy in the world for Nick and Scott - having been involved at a high level in an activist organization, I know how it is to feel bombarded by 'friendly fire'. Why get it pulled when things were being addressed and answered??

Because sabetooths mission wasn't truth, it was throwing around enough innuendo in the hopes something would be forgetten on the ground he could point to and claim was evidence of a cover up in an unethical attempt to smear what he believes to be peer adversaries.

"Actions like this serve ONLY to strengthen what the AFers continually bleat about."

Actions like this are a direct result of people reading their ridiculous conspiracy theories and lies and thinking they got a handle on people and events they know nothing about. For instance, just a few weeks ago they were "bleating on" about the reasons why you left (forced out?) SAS so quickly and how your replacement has what appear to be connections with unsavory organizations.

Myself, being a thinking rationale type and considering the source, rejected these ridiculous accusations out of hand and didn't give them a second thought. However, someone like 'tooth with an ax to grind or grudge to itch, might decide to use these psychotic rantings in an attempt to smear you, your friends and your intentions on this website. The problem is they can succeed because there are just enough tinfoil conspiracy types who hang around FR who would be too willing to believe them with no evidentiary support at all.

I've asked Jim and the mods to restore Sabertooth's posts because, as you point out, deleting them gives the false impression that we have something to hide.

The problem we face is that a number of people of your acquaintance have convinced themselves that the FR Network is a repository of insensate evil, and that their duty is to so inform the world. Not actually knowing very much about the Network, they fill in the blanks by making things up.

The actual topics don't really matter -- when one objection is explained another is instantly raised. The only constants are animosity and attempts to denigrate by implication.

We're perfectly happy to explain what we're trying to do, but when somebody takes over an interview thread to complain for hundreds of words about past events, refuses to accept encyclopedia references as evidence, hints darkly at financial impropriety, and so on, I think it's reasonable for the moderators to step in to prevent the thread from being hijacked and trashed. It isn't special treatment, it's really just the same thing they would do for anybody else.

Now, if you will please excuse me, I have rather a lot to do.

Now, it looks like someone from the Department of Whining and Complaining went sobbing to the mods.

I hate it when that happens. He disappears, and then it looks like I had something to do with it. Nope. I shoot back; I do not rain mods on people. I have a specially trained cadre of Microsoft shills in the OS Wars threads that I use just to keep me in practice for stuff like this,

I will say though, that there ought to be some bounds of politeness on the subject of prying into fellow Freepers' private lives. If I had answered his last post, what was coming next... a demand to see receipts?

There is some merit in BobJ's point that there are people around here whose modus operandi is to just keep coming with the innuendo and suggestion-of-impropriety hoo-hah to the point of ridiculousness. What the hell business is it of his what I do to bill hours? If we ever have a "What's your occupation" thread and I choose to participate, that's one thing. But badgering people to "tell us how you get your money and how you spend it" is probably not something we want to see a lot of around here.

And now I must go install a dual bulletin board into a web site that's supposed to open Real Soon Now that will hopefully land a mighty blow on our favorite ketchup salesman. Somebody watch my back.

Sabertooth said nothing that deserved a banning - no invective, no libel, no "trolling" - nothing.

I can see how a moderator could have come to a different conclusion. "No personal attacks" is one of the basic rules around here. A lot of people take that to mean that you can't say, "You, sir, are a cad and a bounder," but there is more to the concept than that.

Billable hours in what field?
How much of that is defrayed by donations to the various FRN sites?
Who makes up the shortfalls, if any?
have you ever had any other business dealings with H.E., besides those associated with various FRN projects?

There are no cads or bounders in there, but taken as a whole, that is the standard Mike Wallace hatchet-job act from 60 Minutes. It's a fairly blatant attempt to paint me as a guy with some sneaky underhanded financial dealings which he is going to expose through some combination of deft probing and belligerence.

Does that constitute a personal attack? It sounds all polite, and he didn't swear at me or anything, but it's what you'd get from Ed Bradley interviewing Dick Cheney on the subject of Halliburton. He's insinuating financial impropriety, and doing so in a way that's all dolled up with a pretty bow, with no profanity or name-calling. I guess one of the mods decided that he would get to spend a night in the box.

I hate it when that happens. He disappears, and then it looks like I had something to do with it.

Nick - That's why I replied to myself, not you. I never thought you pulled in chits to have his posts suspended.

Bob, you wrote: "Because sabetooths mission wasn't truth,"

I don't know what Saber's mission is. I first noticed the sparks fly on the Reagan memorial thread. Then I saw him suspended for something I thought was downright ridiculous and made a comment on a different thread. And then I made one here.

Maybe I'm just oversensitive, but as a loserdopian, or whatever they call libertarians on here now, I am very sensitive to who gets in trouble for what. And I hate double standards. And once I saw one so blatant, I decided to pay attention. That's the extent of my history with Saber.

IT - My main run-in with mojo, fyi, was when he started bombarding me with questions about how SAS was run. This was back several boards ago when I defended the FRN on some (now) unimportant point. So yes, I can COMPLETELY empathize. Other than having to go defend Laz on their board due an unwarranted and untrue smear that -left undefended- would have been a horrible blight on anyone, that's been my main connection with them. Yeah - and I chatted with Landshark about my business some time back, but not really since then. There. I hope with all of the above I have disassociated myself from all of the usual suspects. I would HATE to have my comments be viewed as 'covert' AFing. As they say, just because you're paranoid doesn't meant there aren't people out to get you. If what I say is criticism, please take it as constructive, not destructive.

There is some merit in BobJ's point that there are people around here whose modus operandi is to just keep coming with the innuendo and suggestion-of-impropriety hoo-hah to the point of ridiculousness

I don't disagree! But there have got to be better ways of handling it. There are too many people reading these threads and watching the exchanges, and how many reply? VERY few. So, regardless of the initial posts, are the replies from the FRNers making friends, scaring people, or making enemies? Just food for thought.

Wasn't one of the mods. I sent him to the box myself. I had warned and suspended him just a few days ago about his antifreeping activities on FR and promised him that he would get suspended again if he continues and each new suspension would be longer than the last. If he contines antifreeping when he gets back, he'll be suspended again.

Free Republic Network has my total support and blessing. Attacks on FRN are attacks on FR. Those who wish to attack and or smear FR or FRN or our members can do it elsewhere. It's not welcome on this forum.

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.