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

Independent Bias Website ^ | June 30, 2004 | Rich Bowden

[Lazamataz]

The story of Todd Brendan Fahey is much more interesting. Check it out when you can!

[Sabertooth]

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.

Oh, I glossed over this.

How am I trying to discredit FR or Jim by advocating a higher profile approach for FR?

When I call into the Hugh Hewitt Show, as I have on a few occasions, and represent FR there in a way that does credit to this site, and by extension all of the posters here, is that part of some subterfuge I've undertaken?

[ForGod'sSake]

[Lazamataz]

LOL!

[Sabertooth]

The story of Todd Brendan Fahey is much more interesting. Check it out when you can!

You might take a look at some of my posts to TBF over at Liberty Forum, where I debunked some crap he'd been spreading about a well known and well liked poster from Free Republic.

[Lazamataz]

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...?

[Sabertooth]

I soooooo avoid that place.

I do too, as a general rule, but this was necessary.

Just click on my profile there, I only have about a couple dozen posts.

[Sabertooth]

Thanks for bumping my interview thread, though.

Happy to help.

For kicks I went over to the WinterSoldier site and clicked on your timeline. I was kind of interested in a particular bit of info that I had dug up about Senator Stennis, the only one of the known potential VVAW assassination targets who was actually shot -- within days of the end of the Vietnam War, as it happens.

So, I zeroed in on January of 1973, and noticed that you don't have any mention of Senator Stennis' shooting. Yet this shooting could perhaps have been prevented if John Kerry had reported the assassination plot to the FBI, though we know he didn't. It's a pretty important piece of information in the VVAW case against him.

However, if people Google Search for Stennis shot the first link is to the transcript I posted here at FR, which is the only contemporaneous text report of the shooting of Senator Stennis to be found on the internet (at least, as of the time I posted the thread).

Also on that thread is a post of mine where you can find one of only two places on the internet where you can find the name of even one of the shooters of Senator Stennis (Tyrone Marshall). The other is here, where I found it on a link about the FBI's investigation of Scientology, of all places.

As of this writing, I still don't know if Tyrone Marshall or either of his one or two unnamed accomplices were Vietnam Vets. Yet the fact remains that John Kerry failed to inform the FBI of the potential assassination plot against Senator Stennis, and had he reported it, the shooting of Senator Stennis could very likely have been prevented.

Do you have any of this information posted at WinterSoldier? I clicked around, and didn't find it through Google.

Here's what I found for wintersoldier when I searched Stennis wintersoldier.com:

www.wintersoldier.com -
... members of our Speakers Bureau, email Media@WinterSoldier.com WinterSoldier.com is
an ... murder several US Senators, including John Tower, John Stennis, and Strom ...
ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Keys - 19k - Cached - Similar pages

www.wintersoldier.com - Key Points
... members of our Speakers Bureau, email Media@WinterSoldier.com WinterSoldier.com is
an ... murder several US Senators, including John Tower, John Stennis, and Strom ...
ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/ index.php?page=20040224210534994 - 19k - Cached - Similar pages

www.wintersoldier.com -
... To contact members of our Speakers Bureau, email Media@WinterSoldier.com WinterSoldier.com
is an ... of these war crimes, and we sent it to Senator Stennis, and we ...
ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=KerryONeill - 46k - Cached - Similar pages

www.wintersoldier.com - Complete Kerry / O'Neill Debate, 06/30/71
... To contact members of our Speakers Bureau, email Media@WinterSoldier.com WinterSoldier.com
is an ... of these war crimes, and we sent it to Senator Stennis, and we ...
ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/ index.php?page=20040503214623700 - 47k - Cached - Similar pages

When I clicked on those links, I didn't find even a mention that Senator Stennis had ever been shot. Yet, as shown above, if I Google "Stennis shot," or even Stennis assassination, the very first link that comes up is here at Free Republic, where I posted the information.

Anyway, so much for the omission of the Stennis shooting in the January 1973 section of your timeline. However, I also noticed this item for that month:

January, 1973 -- The Nixon Administration signs the Treaty of Paris.

However, a few Google searches show that Benjamin Franklin signed the Treaty of Paris in 1783, while the Nixon Administration signed the Paris Peace Accords. in January of 1973, to end the Vietnam War.

I'm sure that's already been noted, with all of the traffic you've gotten, and that the correction is imminent. Also, I confess that I didn't look closely at any other months in your timeline but January of 1973, so I don't have any observations, as of now, about the accuracy of the rest of it.

[Interesting Times]

Treaty of Paris...

[Nick Danger]

you don't have any mention of Senator Stennis' shooting... I still don't know if Tyrone Marshall or either of his one or two unnamed accomplices were Vietnam Vets.

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.

[Sabertooth]

Treaty of Paris...

You've gotta be kidding. You sent a link to Encarta, which is a single site.

That's it?

Google "Treaty of Paris" and search for the word "Vietnam." You won't find it on the first page of results, or on the next nine. "1783" does appear, however (22 times on the first page), as it is the year when the most famous "Treaty of Paris" was signed by Ben Franklin. When reasonably well-read folks refer to the "Treaty of Paris," they mean the one signed by Franklin.

Now Google "Paris Peace Accords." The word "Vietnam" appears 16 times on the first page.

Repeating Encarta's error seems to be the problem, not the excuse.

[Sabertooth]

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.

You don't get it.

Kerry was at VVAW meeting there the assassinations of Senators was vociferously debated, and put to a binding vote. Though Kerry voted against the plot, and his side prevailed, he did not inform the FBI of the potential plot, lied about attending the meetings, changed his story several times, and now claims he must have forgotten all about it. He's lying.

One of the Senators considered for assassination was shot 14 months after that meeting in Kansas City. Could that shooting have been averted if Kerry had acted properly? It's not a hatchet job, it's a reasonable question, but a question that wintersoldier.com fails to ask because it never even mentions the Stennis yhooting. This is not how you approach an investigation, by stifling lines of inquiry. You put the info out there to see if folks see things you don't. That's what FR is good at, an wintersoldier.com isn't.

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.

Handwringing. An enthusiastic mass of Freepers can root out more info than a few guys with a website. If your target is the mainstream media, you're probably going to be disappointed. This is a story made by and for alternative media. You're hemming findings to tailor your message for delivery by a vehicle (mainstream media) that won't run with it anyway, unless absolutely forced by the alternatives.

FR is in a better position to that than wintersoldier.com.

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.

I did, as the post above demonstrates.

The 1973 to end the Vietnam War is most commonly called the Paris Peace Accord.

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.

You aren't going to find any possible links by not acknowledging the dots the links might connect.

In any case, the direct link isn't necessary. Stennis' life was endangered by Kerry's anti-American irresponsibility. He knows he has to hide the Kansas City meetings because what he did is unacceptable under any circumstances. So far the mainstream press has had little difficulty ignoring WinterSoldier.com's approach.

[Interesting Times]

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. 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.

[Sabertooth]

You don't even have the grace to be embarrassed?

You can't find the word "Vietnam" displayed int the first 200 results on Google for "Treaty of Paris." That doesn't embarrass me.

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.

You've misunderstood completely. I don't think wintersoldier is worth much, so I don't care if my info is posted there. I posted it at FR, where I wanted it, where Google searches might find it.

However, I'm not the exclusive source of any information at all about the Stennis shooting, and you've chosen to have none at all. That's the point I was observing, in contrast to what FR has on the subject, and what shows up on Google, which benefits FR.

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.

Now try Googling Franklin 1783 "Treaty of Paris"

That's over 6000 results.

But why do this at all, when the generic Google for "Treaty of Paris" gives Franklin's treaty clear precedence over the Vietnamese peace treaty? Not a single display of "Vietnam" in the first 200 results, but Franklin's Treaty is everywhere.

The accepted name for the 1973 Treaty is Paris Peace Accords, but go ahead, leave it as you have it.

[technochick99]

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.

[Nick Danger]

You don't get it.

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.

So far the mainstream press has had little difficulty ignoring WinterSoldier.com's approach.

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.

[Sabertooth]

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.

Agreed, though I don't mind taking a personal attack from time to time. Some folks are excitable, so it's bound to happen. A little jabbing now and then is OK too, if it's done in good humor with some sense of self-restraint.

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.

Well, you're very kind and I thank you for the compliment, even though you're apparently wrong 80% of the time.

(sorry, I couldn't restrain myself)

[Sabertooth]

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.

Then you really don't get it, because I'm not offering my services as an editor. I'm offering my services as a critic, and the service isn't to wintersoldier.com.

This is a service I offer as I see the need arise, to all sorts of enterprises I didn't create: Congress, the White House, CNN, Islam... do I need to go on?

Most of your comments here are based on misunderstandings and/or misrepresentations of my positions, as any objective reader can see, so I’m not going to spend a lot of time refuting those aspects of your post.

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.

Reads to me like an attempt at a veiled threat, and not the first here.

A reminder: I'm not criticizing FR, I'm advocating it.

FR and the FRN are wholly independent entities, remember?

Earlier on this thread (you may have read it) I put forth the question as to whether or not it was possible for FR and the FRN to have conflicts of interest. If the two are truly independent entities, the answer is most certainly yes.

If the answer is no, then the two are most certainly not independent entities.

It’s always struck me as reasonable (and tidier) that FR and the FRN should be completely independent, to avoid entanglements with this country’s labyrinthian tax and election laws.

Speaking of independent (and interdependent) entities, can you sketch out your business/professional/political affiliations with wintersoldier.com? It may have been posted elsewhere, but if so I missed it.

The reason I ask is based on a few things I’ve noticed, which I’ll address after a few digressions.

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.

Newspapers don't only report verifiable facts, they also ask reasonable questions.

That Senator Stennis was shot was a verifiable fact.

That John Kerry participated in a VVAW debate that discussed assassinating Senator Stennis 14 months previous to the shooting is a verifiable fact.

That the VVAW meeting was a violation of 1971 federal law against plotting the assassination of members of Congress is a verifiable fact.

That John Kerry failed to report this meeting, and actually participated in the concealing of it is a verifiable fact.

That if John Kerry reported this meeting to the FBI, then Senator John Stennis, then the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, would have learned of the potential plot is a reasonable assumption.

Based on that, whether John Stennis might have been more wary of his personal safety, or whether the FBI might have provided his home and person with some sort of enhanced security, are also reasonable questions.

There is also a difference between libraries and television sets.

I thought you were implying wintersoldier.com was a newspaper.

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.

So, libraries don't mention the Stennis shooting either?

Using FR as a library isn’t so difficult if you know how to work the keyword feature for quick future reference (create unique compound keywords), which isn’t more difficult than any other filing system. With any of them, the file is easier to relocate if the system is followed from the point of entry.

If you’d created a SHUTTLEENGINEERING keyword, you could have entered any article you wanted into that file, and retrieved it quickly. I do it all the time with articles that interest me.

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.

You post no noise?

You're quite affiliated with that other guy via the FRN, and much of what you've posted here is unevenly reasoned anyway. As I implied earlier, It appears to me that you may also have some sort of business arrangement with wintersoldier.com. Do I have that right?

The reason I ask is because http://www.wintersoldier.com isn’t really the address of WinterSoldier.com. Clicking on that link takes you to the following URL:

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/

Now that rings a bell, because the FR Photo Album, for which it’s been said that you provide the webspace, has a similar URL:

http://hail.he.net/~danger/freepnet/album/

Actually, that’s an old URL I have from a bookmark. Clicking on that Photo Album link takes one to this URL:

http://www.rightalk.com/freepnet/album

And then to this URL:

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/album/

An old URL for the Free Republic Network charts a similar path:

http://hail.he.net/~danger/freepnet/index.php

Clicking on that link takes one to first to this URL:

http://www.rightalk.com/freepnet

And eventually to this URL:

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/

Over here at a Townhall.com article about the Winter Soldier investigation, there is a Free Republic Network link with this URL:

http://www.freerepublic.net/

But clicking on it leads back through the old FRN URL and the rightalk.com URL, to the current home of the Free Republic Network.

The http://www.freeper.org/ link on your FR homepage also leads to the Rightalk and current FRN URLs.

If I do a little cutting through some of these “danger,” “rightalk,” and “freepnet” URLs, like this http://hail.he.net/, or this http://ice.he.net/, I can get to this site:

http://www.he.net/

That, as I’m sure you already know, is the homepage for Hurricane Electric Internet Services.

Would it be fair to describe you as a disinterested observer in websites hosted through Hurricane Electric?

[Nick Danger]

I'm offering my services as a critic

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.

This is a service I offer as I see the need arise, to all sorts of enterprises I didn't create: Congress, the White House, CNN, Islam... do I need to go on?

So you're a critic-at-large. That's pretty cool.

FR and the FRN should be completely independent, to avoid entanglements with this country’s labyrinthian tax and election laws.

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.

can you sketch out your business/professional/political affiliations with wintersoldier.com?

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.

You post no noise?

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.

It appears to me that you may also have some sort of business arrangement with wintersoldier.com. Do I have that right?

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.

*.he.net

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.

Would it be fair to describe you as a disinterested observer in websites hosted through Hurricane Electric?

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.

[Sabertooth]

I hope this answers all your questions. I really don't have time for any more of this.

Let's be clear that you came looking for me on this thread, where you've now acknowledged you have a boatload of subjective intrerests. You still can't manage to accurately summarize my positions as stated, and your attempts to read between my lines, if that's what you think you've been doing, are nothing but an army of little strawmen.

I made a post on this thread that was overlooked for four days, and I had no intention of returning to this thread until a couple of your cohort simultaneously decided to belatedly reply while I was temporarily without posting priveleges. Their comments, and lately yours, are what have brought me back here, not that I mind because I've given better than I've gotten.

This has happened before, if you'll recall last December, where you came blustering into a thread where it also turned out you had subjective interests (as well as a dearth of information), and when that was brought up, you got testy then as well.

In the last year I have probably spent $30,000 worth of billable hours on various things...

Billable hours in what field?

I seem to recall reading somewhere that you had worked in internet technologies, or some other computer field, though I may be mistaken.

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.

Fair enough. How much of that is defrayed by donations to the various FRN sites, out of curiousity? Who makes up the shortfalls, if any?

Also, have you ever had any other business dealings with H.E., besides those associated with various FRN projects?