Sorry, Mitch. SBVAK's credibility (never exactly rock-solid to begin with) was dealt a fatal blow with retractiongate. It's over. You can flog a dead horse, but it ain't gonna do you any good.

I feel much the same way about those on the left who still are poreing over Bush's records. Yeah, there may be some evidence that points to something about something, but guess what? The issue's over. Unless you come across a document that says "I, George W. Bush, didn't serve," nothing's going to come of it.

So it's over and done with. Get over it, and get back focused on the race at hand.

I know, I know--that ain't exactly a pleasant prospect for those on the right. But wishing that the SBVAK storyline will captivate the nation isn't going to make it happen.

didnt this same blog decry some nutcases shouting at Desert Sheild troops being heckled at a parade last month? I suppose its ok to question someones charicter as a vetran as long as they are a democrat? An attack on Edwards as a former lawyer is ok, but not cheney as a honcho of haliburton?

If you guys want to portray yourselves as having the higher moral ground, you really need to try stepping onto it once in awhile.

Jeff said: "SBVAK's credibility (never exactly rock-solid to begin with) was dealt a fatal blow with retractiongate."

That was my first reaction too, until I read this:
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2004/08/kranish_is_cook.html

Kranish is Dowdifying quotes. Compare:
1)As appeared in the Globe:
Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."
2)Without the ellipses:
When Kerry came back to the United States he lied about what ocurred in Vietnam, comparing his commanders to Lt. Calley of My Lai, comparing the American armed forces to the army of Ghengis Khan, and making similar misstatements. Kerry was also not forthright in Vietnam. For example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back.

And check the swiftvets site, Elliot has another affidavit, refuting the Globe: http://www.swiftvets.com/Elliottaffidavit08062004.pdf

As to the credibility of the swiftvets, check this out: http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2004/08/what_the_other_.html

I don't think this election should be about VietNam, but it seems to be Kerry's primary issue. He shouldn't have free reign to lie about it and have the press let him off scot free. The fact that the mainstream press hasn't followed up on this earlier proves the liberal bias of the media better that anything in recent memory.

Retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann, chairman and co-founder of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. . .

"May 6: "Hoffman acknowledged he had no first-hand knowledge to discredit Kerry's claims to valor and said that although Kerry was under his command, he really didn't know Kerry much personally." [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel]

August 5: Hoffman said, "I knew him well, because I operated very closely with him and, uh, many of the operations, uh, most of the operations were-were conducted with multiple boats" - a dramatic shift from admitting no personal knowledge of Kerry three months earlier; it went unchallenged by his host. [ABC Radio's Sean Hannity Show]"

with "truth" in the title of their organization you would think that they would try to actually have some.
Add this to the following. . .

"John E. O'Neill one of the authors of the forthcoming Regnery book Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry (whose links in the GOP go back to his days as "protégé of Nixon-era dirty trickster Charles Colson") -- little has been said about his co-author, Jerome R. Corsi, PhD.

• Corsi on Islam: "a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion"

• Corsi on Catholicism: "Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press"

• Corsi on Muslims: "RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters -- it all goes together"

• Corsi on "John F*ing Commie Kerry": "After he married TerRAHsa, didn't John Kerry begin practicing Judiasm? He also has paternal grandparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry?"

hmmm blatant racism, anti-semitism, anti-catholicism and predjudiced hate monger. . . .

Is this really the group you want to be seen agreeing with?
really?

Jeff,

Steve's right. The "retraction", wasn't. You really must stay up on these things.

JasonDL,

Too many strawmen for one little comment thread. I've never decried anyone's status as a veteran. This episode asks serious questions about Kerry's credibility to be commander in chief; his attempts to answer the charges have dug the hole deeper.

So Corsi has some unsavory stuff in his past. Whooie. Duly noted. Now - anyone care to respond re the party boy, Kerry himself?

wasnt this thread based on a post about the swifties? I figured Id actually respons on topic, but since that seems to bother you. . .

Unfit to serve and commander in chief? In relation to who. . .Bush? If were going to use previous military service as a guide then Bush wouldnt even be in the white house. Or do you base you statement on his record as president? Frankly thats the biggest argument against W as CIC ive seen. Poor planning, lack of fundamental understanding of the situation on the ground, ignoring military advice put forth by his own chiefs of staff, an apparent inability to shift tactics to meet differing challenges, and an almost patholigical need to rationalise even drastic swings in his own policy as "what we were saying all along". . .frankly Bush scares the hell out of me as Commander in chief.

In Kerry I see a guy whose willing to delay the immediate gratification of unilateral action in favor of coordinated action when the enemy is weak and we are strong (i.e. not invading Iraq while we currently have ground war in afghanistan), the ability to focus on a specific task (i.e. getting bin laden and al-queda before taking on a bottled up "threat"), the willingness to listen to his chiefs of staff (ie. not invading a country with less than half the troops reccomended by the army cos), and the experience in international affairs to do it without alienating those who would otherwise be our allies.

Jason DL--

Just a couple of things. You say "...the experience in international affairs to do it without alienating those who would otherwise be our allies" [regarding John Kerry].

First, unless you count his four months in 'Nam, what "experience in international affairs" are you talking about?

And second, as to those "alienated" nations who ostensibly got their feelings so hurt by George W. Bush, do we really need "allies" that abandon us so easily? Please. The Brits, the Aussies, the Poles, the Israelis. Give me allies like these any day of the week--I know when I turn around they won't have cut and run.

All those words just to say do nothing but baffle them with bullshit.

I appreciate commenter Steve Meyer's linking above of my post regarding my own first-hand experience with John O'Neill and my assessment of his credibility based on having to cross-examine him under oath in the jury trial of a huge civil case some years ago. In one of the footnotes to that post, I discuss some of the attempts by Media Matters and Joe Conason to smear O'Neill; they don't withstand even casual scrutiny.

http://www.beldar.org/beldarblog/2004/08/what_the_other_.html

I've also taken a very close look in three posts on my own blog at Mike Kranish's Boston Globe story on Captain Elliott's so-called "retraction," and at Captain Elliott's two affidavits — the second of which strongly reaffirms his statements in the SwiftVets' video about Kerry. My conclusion — admittedly based on inference, unless and until Kranish releases a tape, if there is one, of his phone call with Captain Elliott — is that Kranish very likely manipulated Captain Elliott by exploiting some loosely drafted language from the first affidavit, panicking Captain Elliott into thinking (incorrectly) that he'd committed perjury, and then put a hard left spin on some of Elliott's resulting statements of alarm to produce the quotes for the so-called retraction.

http://www.beldar.org/beldarblog/2004/08/the_elliott_ret.html
http://www.beldar.org/beldarblog/2004/08/musings_regardi.html
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2004/08/kranish_and_ell.html

Finally, anyone who's even mildly interested in the SwiftVets controversy should definitely read John O'Neill's very detailed and fact-specific response to the lawsuit threat letter sent jointly sent out by the DNC and the Kerry-Edwards 2004 Campaign in their efforts to suppress the SwiftVets' video.

http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/article.php?story=20040808144320243

With all the talk about the affidavits, why can't I find them? I found them once before, but can't now. The SBVFT website does not have them linked. Your link does not work. Someone else in another site asked why the SBV website had been sanitized. Is that because the affidavits were phoney?

Where are they?