Even though we are not talking about the swiftboating of John Kerry, I still feel as though it’s an ugly, ugly tactic and the people I’ve met who know Duncan Hunter, for example, would not appreciate this. To answer your question, - I think there were parts of each party telling the truth. People take their perceptions and mold them into their versions of the truth. Back then, I bought the book.
I think that President Bush would have won anyway. He was by far the better (conservative) candidate, whose father has heaped praise on Rudy, and I’m glad he won.
Even though we are not talking about the swiftboating of John Kerry, I still feel as though it’s an ugly, ugly tactic and the people I’ve met who know Duncan Hunter, for example, would not appreciate this. To answer your question, - I think there were parts of each party telling the truth. People take their perceptions and mold them into their versions of the truth. Back then, I bought the book.
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I do not agree with your characterization of "swiftboating" as "an ugly, ugly tactic" nor your assertion that "there were parts of each party telling the truth". This issue was dissected exhaustively at the time, and I have never heard of one single claim of the Swiftvets (Neal Boortz said he had found one minor error, but when I looked into it Boortz was the one in error) that was demonstrated to be false, while Kerry was very publicly tripped-up in several lies (remember Christmas in Cambodia?).
If private citizens banding together to expose the truth and correct the record about a public figure who has slandered them has and has and is lying to advance himself is "an ugly, ugly tactic", then words no longer mean anything.
The term "Swiftboating" is an honorable one, not an "ugly" one.
I think that President Bush would have won anyway. He was by far the better (conservative) candidate, whose father has heaped praise on Rudy *(THSR - and Teddy Kennedy, too - let's not forget!), and I’m glad he won.
I'm glad President Bush won, too. I voted for him, twice. But let's be very clear, however. Without the efforts of the Swiftvets Bush would not be President today.
The cruel irony of this is that the Swiftvets did not not make their effort in order to help Bush. They did it to stop Kerry, to expose his lies and correct the historical record, to restore the honor of their fellow veterans who were slandered and libeled by Kerry throughout a thirty-year political career, and most of all, to protect our currently serving military personnel from the threat of Kerry betraying them just as he betrayed the Vietnam vets.
The cruelest irony of all is that President Bush benefited from their efforts while never even acknowledging them, and has failed dismally to match their courage and dedication in defending our troops from the unrelenting onslaught of lies, sabotage and persecution from the Democrats, the MSM, the fifth-columns in the State Department, CIA, etc. and even from within the military bureaucracy and its out-of-control JAG corps.
I hope you will ponder these things, and I wish you well.