EAllusion wrote:In the Off Topic forum not that long ago Droopy posted an article written by one of the main people behind the swiftboating of John Kerry. To swiftboat someone is now a term that means to try and bring someone down with a dishonest smear campaign.
There's only one fundamental problem here, D, and that's that fact that all of the claims the Swifties made regarding the past behavior and character of the traitorous John Kerry, were, for all intents, true. That is easily ascertained by observation of the overwhelming concurrence of virtually the entire chain of command under which Kerry served, and the vast majority of those who were eyewitness to the events that occurred. Secondly is the record of Kerry's own behavior (such as his flat footed Christmas in Cambodia deception), and that aspect of his career that was the actual primary focus of the Swift Vets criticism - his key role in fomenting and popularizing the fantastic intellectual and historical fraud known as the Winter Soldier Investigation, in which an entire generation of soldiers, fighting for a noble cause, and the fundamental nature and principles of the nation in who's name they fought, were calumniated, impugned, and turned into fiendish, drug addled monsters (unlike the noble, courageous, Boy Scout-like Viet Cong).
Kerry and the rest of the mostly phony soldiers (whom subsequent investigation determined had either never been in Viet Nam, had been in Viet Nam, but had never seen combat or any of the fabricated atrocities they claimed to have participated in, or had never been in the military at all) new perfectly well that they were making everything they claimed they had either witnessed or participated in up (and we have long known that except for a few isolated incidents, such as My Lai, virtually everything they claimed was complete fabrication), and were quite vehemnt about it until government investigators sought them out and requested specifics and detail.
Kerry, you see, like so many other leftists of his generation, thought the United States was fighting on the wrong side in that conflict. Kerry wanted the North Vietnamese to win that war, not his own country and the South Vietnamese who eventually paid the price for the victory of the American "peace" movement over humanity.
Kerry, of course, cavorted on friendly terms with the communist enemy while hostilities were still under way (and while still a member of the Untied States military), and shilled for the Paris Peace Plan in America (which was actually nothing more than terms for the abject surrender of the United States and the abandoning of South Vietnam to its fate, which congress later ensured).
Droopy finds that guy credible enough to quote full articles from.
I see no reason, at this juncture, not to find him credible.
Here's a small post-mortem on the end of Kerry's fetid presidential ambitions.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25022But Jon Stewart - someone often praised for his criticism of discourse in the media - is just so beyond the pale that no serious thinker should ever take anything he has to say seriously.
I take him as seriously as I take Katie Couric or Brian Williams, except that Couric and Williams (and many others) are
unintentionally funny.
I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that one guy is a freeper whose bread and butter is attacking Democrats and liberals
Well, at this point, as the Left in general have moved so far beyond rational or civil discourse that substantive, productive debate with most of its comitted members has become impossible, they have left no other alternative than to simply be defeated politically (before it really is too late) which means, unfortunately, attacking them (i.e., exposing them for what they really are and telling the truth about what they really believe).