Overreaching criticism of swift boats..

from JoeUser Forums

Is it just me or does anyone see the irony of the people who are hysterical about the swift-boat attacks on Kerry?  Kerry, who is running for President, and his supporters arguing that these guys, many of whom are pretty normal "regular guys" are somehow political activists with (egads) an agenda.

And because they have an agenda what they say can't be trusted.  But somehow we can trust what Kerry says...because..he doesn't have an agenda?

1,823 views 4 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think both sides are a goldmine for Kerry. No one tempted to vote for Kerry is going to be swayed by the swiftboat vets, and all the rest will be distracted from his horrific 30 year voting and attendance record in Congress. Make people look at a side show long enough, and even if they aren't influenced by it the real show will have passed them by. I think that will work in Kerry's favor every time.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Same old, same old.

On both sides.
Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Draginol:

Well, there are many issues here. First, if the Swift Boat Vets are doing this because they're saying that Kerry is dishonorable that is a different situation than if they are just acting as a mouthpiece for the RNC. (Connections between the 2 groups have been made and should be considered).

Second, since the White House says "We trust John Kerry's War Record" is that disputing the Swift Boat Vets or is it a slapdash attempt to distance themselves from them in case they are taken as being a "slander campaign." (Remember Bush did the same thing to McCain and McCain supports Kerry on this issue).

Finally, is the issue worth the consideration any more than Bush's "sort of missing" military records that month by month seem to be more and more available? It seems to me that Kerry's war record is only a consideration if you think it makes him more likely to seek military action because of his background in Viet Nam. I would personally be surprised if that were true in the voters' mind.

Of course, you might ask why these "fine outstanding vets" never thought that being a senator was important enough to bring this information forward before. How convenient that he ran for President just in time for them to find their voices......
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Remember Bush did the same thing to McCain and McCain supports Kerry on this issue)."


Gah, JEEZ, no, he didn't. I see this here over and over, and I can't get ANYONE to point out where Bush questioned McCain's service. Again, as here with these conspiracy theories, people "loosly associated" with Bush had questions.

Frankly, when McCain publicly called the Vietnamese that held him captive "gooks", and refused to apologize about it, I did too. I have great respect for the man, but if you think that respect equals an unquestioning belief in the mental stability of someone, you are building too much into the definition. There's a difference in admiring someone's service and trusting them with their finger on "the button". I heard *lots* of people question McCain's abilities when he was running, on BOTH sides. Now, he seems to be the darling of the left because it suits them.

Lay off it. Bush's "associates" say things, so do Kerry's. Kerry has relied on soft-omney slander to run his "clean" campaign. In reality, Kerry has kept his character assassins much closer, at least until "officially" debunked.