shotbanner.jpeg

September 27, 2004

Debunked?

Beldar Blog has issued "a challenge to those who claim that the SwiftVets' allegations have been "debunked" or are "unsubstantiated" (as opposed to "questioned on some aspects"), as current lefty/media lore relentlessly intones intones:

But on none of these issues I've just listed [read the piece] have the SwiftVets' allegations been "debunked" or proven "unsubstantiated." Andrew Sullivan or the NYT repeating over and over that they have been simply don't make them so. To employ the legal jargon of summary judgment proceedings, a rational factfinder could conclude from the evidence that the SwiftVets have produced on each of these allegations that, indeed, they're true. A trial judge who dismissed these allegations outright, without letting the factfinder (typically a jury) consider them, would certainly be reversed on appeal and told to let the jury do its work. They haven't, in lay terms, been "debunked" but rather, they're fiercely disputed by competent evidence (some of it eyewitness, some of it circumstantial, some of it documentary).

Hence my challenge for the weekend to my readers you're probably a minority, as these things go, but I know from my comments pages that you're out there who may agree with the NYT or Mr. Sullivan:

Can you identify even one specific and material SwiftVets allegation that you believe to have been fully "debunked" or fully proven to be "unsubstantiated"?

So, lefties - care to throw down?

I don't think any of you can answer it.

Posted by Mitch at September 27, 2004 06:26 AM | TrackBack
Comments

I am curious, can we do it the easy way, and use circumstantial evidence and unsubstantiated heresay (like the Right seems to cling on), or are we stuck using Official Naval documents and official eyewitness accounts at the time, which, of course, would fully support Kerry's version and contradict the Smear Boaters.

Also, can we use the words of the Smear Boaters themselves before they became political activist, or do we have to use their most recent comments, which, in many cases, totally contradicts what they said just a few years ago.

Not that I am going to waste any time on this. There is nothing anyone could say that would give you an 'ah ha' moment! But guide me on the parameters, so I know what the rules are.

Flash

Posted by: Flash at September 27, 2004 09:49 AM

Flash,

Have you actually read the book? Because most of the evidence goes way beyond circumstantial. There's plenty o'documentary evidence, too.

"I am curious, can we do it the easy way, and use circumstantial evidence and unsubstantiated heresay (like the Right seems to cling on), or are we stuck using Official Naval documents and official eyewitness accounts at the time, which, of course, would fully support Kerry's version and contradict the Smear Boaters."

Except, as noted in many Northern Alliance and other blogs, the official Navy records also show that Kerry was not *present* for some actions for which he claimed credit.

"Also, can we use the words of the Smear Boaters themselves before they became political activist, or do we have to use their most recent comments, which, in many cases, totally contradicts what they said just a few years ago."

Yep. And I can point you to some of the "Band of Brothers" who were critical of Kerry a few years ago, too.

Still doesn't answer the question. Where are the "lies"?

"Not that I am going to waste any time on this. There is nothing anyone could say that would give you an 'ah ha' moment! But guide me on the parameters, so I know what the rules are. "

I though Beldar stated the parameters VERY clearly. Re-read his post.

I don't expect any "a-hah!" moments. Just the growing, slow dripping realization that Kerry is a real-life Cliff Clavin in so many ways.

Posted by: mitch at September 27, 2004 10:37 AM

So Flash, what you give us is three paragraphs of more "but the Swifties really lies", but, again, no substantiation of same.

Which was Mitch's point.

Which you're proving.

See the issue, here?

Posted by: Alison at September 27, 2004 10:58 AM

You know, guys, the US Navy decided that there was not even enough evidence here to consider launching an investigation. The swifties' smears have been debunked over and over again, but you on the right just won't let it die. I have no doubt that had Dan Rather had forged documents backing the swifties, you'd still be swearing up and down that the swifties were right, damn it!

I'm done. I've shown on my site how questionable what the swifties have said is. I can rely on the US Navy to be accurate. And I'm done arguing, becuase I could have film of John Kerry getting shot, and you would claim it didn't prove anything.

You're not interested in the truth, you're interested in the argument. And I'm done.

Posted by: Jeff Fecke at September 27, 2004 01:06 PM

Debunked "over and over again"?

Show me the pointer!

Note: Atrios *saying* "It's All LIES" doesn't count.

Seriously, Jeff; show me the pointer to anything that "refutes" Unfit To Command. All I've seen so far - and I've been looking assiduously for any actual evidence - is ad-hominae, pecking at rhetorical peripheries, and a lot of tantrum-throwing.

Where's the beef?

Where is the evidence to back up Kerry's numerous statements that he was IN Cambodia?

Show it.

Posted by: mitch at September 27, 2004 01:33 PM

By the way, Jeff - your comment was incredibly, gratuitously condescending.

I AM interested in the truth - but the argument is how one gets TO it, and the left has NOT made the argument in any sense that counts as "proof" outside the echo chamber. Chuzzlewits like Atrios and Willis and their many lackeys are stating "the Swifties have been debunked", as if it's some comprehensive fact. If so, it must require a type of clairvoyance that is unique to...Democrats.

So maybe you DO have "the truth", Jeff - but you've shown us ZERO evidence of it. So if you can stifle your righteous indignation, please enlighten me.

Posted by: mitch at September 27, 2004 01:39 PM

I don't know. I think "Jeff Fecke says stop asking or he'll quit the argument" is good enough for me.

Posted by: Alison at September 27, 2004 01:58 PM

I kept reading about how the charges by the swiftboat vets had been debunked, and I couldn't for the life of me figure out how. I went on line and searched to see if I missed something, and I hadn't.

Here is what the left claims debunks the SBVT's allegations.

1. The original funding was given by a republican partisan. Duh, who else would you expect to fund something like this, the DNC?

2. The 64 veterans who served in Vietnam with Kerry weren't on the boat with him and therefore couldn't possible be believed vs the crewmates who were on the boat. I guess that means the police should stop looking for witnesses to traffic accidents who weren't in the car. And this even is wrong because one of the 64 was not only on Kerry's boat, but was on it the and his testimony is contrary to what Kerry claims.

3. One of the SBVT support Kerry in his 1996 Senate race, therefore his coming out against Kerry is inconsistent and therefore makes his testimony at best specious. However, you need context before this dog will hunt. Kerry was being attacked by the looney left as a war criminal. To this charge Elliot defended Kerry as being a hero. Later when he found that Kerry to gain his silver star, he chased down a single wounded Vietcong soldier and killed him (testified to by other SBVT and later supported by Navy documents on the incident)he spoke out against him. The Boston Globe reported he had disavowed this to their reporter but Elliott said the Globe misquoted him and reaffirmed his original statement.

4. One of the authors according to the left is a racist. I'm not sure what this has to do with debunking the SBVT, but it is one of the arguments.

5. The SBVT are coordinating with President Bush. This is the weakest of the weak arguments. The claim that a lawyer for the SBVT and one for the Bush campaign were one in the same (perfectly legal considering legal ethics) seems trite when you realize that Carville and Begala are on Kerry's payroll while still on CNN's. And the Rathergate scandal where the Kerry campaign, the DNC, Texans for the Truth and CBS all seem to launch stories or ads on the same subject within one day of one another makes the charges of collusion with the SBVT with the Bush campaign to seem foolish at best.

6. Since it was so long ago, we need to accept the Navy citations as proof. Not a bad argument but one that falls by the wayside when the Dems want to talk about W's National Guard service. Besides, there are a lot of Navy documents that could be checked, but Kerry refused to sign the Form 180 to release them all.

In fact, I think conflicting testimony is where the left hangs there hat. In Kerry's bronze star incident, Rassman claims there was enemy fire, while the SBVT claim there wasn't. Having a read a lot about this and being a classmate at the USNA with John O'Neill, was seem likely to me is that there were some VC who did take a few shots at the boats. However, the swiftboats opened up suppression fire and drove them quickly off. Since Kerry had taken off (no dispute here), when he came back and pulled Rassman out of the river, there not only wasn't 2.5 miles of heavy enemy fire, but there really wasn't any enemy fire. Did he deserve the Bronze star? No.

As for discrediting the SBVT, we have seen the Kerry camp change their story on Christmas in Cambodia, admit that the first purple heart might have been a "mistake" and they still haven't answered the question about the third purple heart which was award for shrapnel in Kerry's buttock which Brinkley explains in his book from Kerry's own diaries he got not in the engagement it was awarded for, but in an accident that involved no enemy fire and therefore was undeserving of a purple heart.

I think the folks on the left are tired of this argument, because they are losing it. The Swiftboat vets shined a light on Kerry's medals and we find a lot of tarnish on them. It appears Kerry was trying to pad his resume and did just that.

But the real charges are what Kerry did when he came back. Since there was no real chance that North Vietnam could defeat America militarily, they had to rely on defeating us in the public opinion. Kerry changed sides, fought for the North Vietnames and lied about all of us to do so. I find him to be despicable.

Posted by: Goodspkr at September 27, 2004 03:47 PM

http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/

Posted by: SwiftBoater at September 27, 2004 03:55 PM

Oh, Goody - eriposte! I've taken a hammer to them in the past. What's one more? That site is leakier than Ted Kennedy's car on party night.

By the way - you call yourself "swift boater". Fair enough - what was your rate and rating? And what kind of boat were you on?

Posted by: mitch at September 27, 2004 04:18 PM

Jeff, you said " I've shown on my site how questionable what the swifties have said is."

If I recall, you also said Dean and then Clark were shoe-ins for the Dem nomination, and that, if I remember right, there was no way Kerry could lose.

Pardon me if I don't consider you the gold standard of information.

Posted by: Anna at September 27, 2004 06:11 PM
hi