Thanks Mr. Armor!
Regards,
TS
Posted on 02/24/2008 7:11:53 PM PST by Congressman Billybob
Senator Hillary Clinton, among others, has begun using “swiftboating” as a verb. Her use is courtesy of the New York Times. Now, with extreme and unintended irony, the Times has sought to “swiftboat” Senator John McCain, and has been swiftboated in return by its own ombudsman,
To sort all that out, we go back to the beginning, so the original swiftboaters don’t get “swiftboated” in the bargain. Does that make sense? I thought not. Hang on and it will all become clear.
The original swiftboaters were crews of Swift Boats in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam. These were small, fast vessels with a small crew, commanded by a Lieutenant. Senator John Kerry commanded one, ending his very short tour with three Purple Hearts. He later offered his military background as a qualification to run for President.
I debated against Kerry, in college. I was in Yale, and in the Yale Political Union, when he walked in the door. I had little respect for him then, I have less for him now. It was not a surprise to me when the majority of Kerry’s fellow swift boat commanders, and a majority of his commanding officers, came forward to say his career was much less than he proclaimed it to be.
These men came forward, and in public, televised statements, told the truth about what Kerry in Vietnam. These statements were made mostly in advertisements, because the media chose not to explore whether Kerry was lying about his service. Those ads were paid for mostly by small donations from Vietnam veterans, still angry about being called war criminals by John Kerry in the “winter soldier” project and such.
Many observers credited the swiftboat campaign as making a critical difference in Kerry’s narrow loss of the presidency.
But who was telling the truth, John Kerry or the swiftboaters? The New York Times claimed that the swiftboaters’ allegations had been “refuted.” Since much of the press takes their lead from the Times, the belief that the swiftboaters brought down Kerry with lies, is widespread. But that is also a bald-faced lie.
Is it true that 47 million Americans are uninsured? No, it is a lie. One-third of those are not Americans, but Mexicans and other aliens, Another third are Americans who have changed jobs, and have other insurance by year’s end.
Is it true that the Arctic ice is melting to extreme low levels (and the coasts are going to be flooded, and we’re all gonna die...)? No, it is a lie. Arctic ice did melt during the summer. It does that every summer. But now it’s back to its usual level. And at the same time, the Antarctic ice was growing.
Was John Kerry’s military record what he said it was? There is one way, and one way only, for a veteran to demonstrate the truth about his military record. That is to sign a Form-180, which allows the release of his confidential records. Kerry claimed he did that, finally, in 2005, but neither that Form nor his full records have ever appeared.
In the absence of complete, official records it is only Kerry’s word against the word of most of his fellow officers and all of his commanding officers.
The law has a concept called adverse inference. At trial, if one party controls a certain document and doesn’t produce it, the judge instructs the jury they may draw an adverse inference, meaning that the missing document must be harmful to the party concealing it. That’s not as complex as it sounds.
Consider: you have a five-year-old child. You hear a crash in the kitchen. You get there, a chair is beside the refrigerator, the broken cookie jar is on the floor, your child is a few steps away. You ask, “Where were you when the cookie jar got broken?” If you don’t get a good answer, you draw an adverse inference.
For an accurate description of the swiftboat-Kerry contest, read To Set the Record Straight by Scott Swett and Tim Ziegler.
Now, when Hillary Clinton uses “swiftboat” as a verb, she means a false attack on a politician which causes harm. But her very use of that verb “swiftboats” the swiftboaters. Their attacks were true. If they weren’t, Kerry would have blown them out of the water by releasing his military records.
This week the Times swiftboated itself. It ran a front-page article accusing John McCain of having an affair with a lobbyist, and providing biased political help to her clients. Except the article only implied the affair because there was no proof. It only implied the undue influence, because there was no proof of that, either.
There was also a dash of hypocrisy. When the Times editorially endorsed McCain in the Super Tuesday primaries, this hatchet job article was in the pipeline.
The Times, however, has swiftboated itself. Without the quotes, that verb means to tell the truth about a person or institution, and cause (justly deserved) harm. The Times’ own ombudsman has written a column condemning its editors and reporters for violating journalistic standards.
If you have time, get and read the history of the swiftboaters. When anyone uses “swiftboat” as a verb, you should ask this question: Is the person using this word to sell me a political falsehood? If the answer is yes, then the speaker is a liar, and the new word should be in quotes. That will make politics more honest, and protect the reputations of thousands of men who served quietly and with honor, on US Navy Swift Boats.
- 30 -
About the Author: John Armor practiced in the US Supreme Court for 33 years. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu He is running for the 11th Congressional District of North Carolina.
- 30 -
I know Conservatives tell the Truth (and usually, it is scrupulously documented and footnoted with source materials). Liberals on the other hand, will repeat rumors and inuendo without proof, or back-up, or confirmation of any kind.
awesome image.
I just love the truth; thanks for the post.
^
bookmark for later.
bump
That’s “John” to you, not “Mr. Armor.” You’ve given blood, sweat and tears to this subject for years. The least I could do is write about it in my national column.
If the Democrats want to re-raise the Swift Boat issue, we should do the same. It was nice of Hillary Clinton to promote your book by raising the issue, wasn’t it?
Cordially,
John
Sorry, couldn't prove it by me. I heard a small piece of analysis this weekend regarding John McCain's "I'm disappointed..." speech; the commentator noted that those words (and the way he said them) are "Lover's Words". That's the way you respond when something has been said to or about you by your husband, wife, or lover! I still think John McCain was precisely that naive - that is, naive enough to believe that the New York Times was his friend (and that they just might support him because of his record of being a MAVARICK).
He has no business, in my opinion, being President.
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.