Yesterday while talking about Swift Boat Vets for the Truth, someone commented to the effect that "they never had any credibiliity anyway".
Why? And says who?
Asked by the Swifties aren't credible, the left pulls out two strawmen: one of the book's coauthors may be a somewhat unsavory character, and many of the men didn't serve on the same boat as Kerry.
In other words, a ad hominem and a non sequitur.
Attacking the critics doesn't answer - or even address - the charges; it merely distracts from the debate (which is, of course, exactly why the Demcrats are doing it).
The other dodge - that only one of the critics served on the same boat - is ludicrous on its face. No Navy vessel - indeed, no military unit of any size - operates on its own, in a vacuum. Not only was a swift crew a team, but the group of boats were as well; each boat supported the other. And the division - the group of groups of swift boats - like all military units in combat, was a close-knit team; reputations travelled fast, especially among the small group of officers and the men that followed them.
So the "they're from different boats" dodge is worse than simple-minded.
Indeed, let's compare credibilities. The lynchpin of John Kerry's credibility on foreign policy is that four months he spent in Vietnam. This is also the key to his credibility on law enforcement, gay marriage, taxation, forestry law and romance, but in any case, it all traces back to those four months, and years he spent as a leftist radical (which leveraged heavily on those four months in Vietnam; do you honestly think John Kerry would have gotten any attention but for the incongruity of being a veteran ultraliberal brahmin?
So if four months in Vietnam is the basis for a whole career's credibility - regardless of stupid decisions made afterward, why not a year's service, like most of the Swifties put in? Or multiple tours, like some of them did? If four months service makes John Kerry credible and above criticism, why don't 12 months make someone three times as credible?
If that year in service doesn't absolve the Swifties' book's co-author Jerome Corsi of a number of inflammatory remarks he's accused of making (which smel out-of-context to me, but let's take them at face value for the moment), it certainly shouldn't absolve Kerry of his crimes - of sweeping the POW/MIA issue under the rug, according to Sidney Schanberg in the Village Voice - should it?
To date, I've seen one piece of "evidence" that the Swifties aren't credible; the earnest howlings of the left that they aren't credible.
I'm awaiting evidence.
Actually, that's not true. I'm not. I'm awaiting John Kerry's coherent answer.
If he wants to be the commander in chief of my country, he'd damn well better cough one up.Posted by Mitch at August 10, 2004 04:47 AM | TrackBack