From Moore to Swift Boats

[Bill Glasheen]

Friendly Fire: The Birth of an Anti-Kerry Ad

By KATE ZERNIKE and JIM RUTENBERG, The New York Times

After weeks of taking fire over veterans' accusations that he had lied about his Vietnam service record to win medals and build a political career, Senator John Kerry shot back yesterday, calling those statements categorically false and branding the people behind them tools of the Bush campaign.

His decision to take on the group directly was a measure of how the group that calls itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has catapulted itself to the forefront of the presidential campaign. It has advanced its cause in a book, in a television advertisement and on cable news and talk radio shows, all in an attempt to discredit Mr. Kerry's war record, a pillar of his campaign.

Apparently what's good for the goose is good for the gander. That's the problem with attacking somebody. The other side gets a vote in the matter as well...

For years, Kenneth Starr was all over Bill Clinton like white (water) on rice. What started as an alleged scandal over real estate ended up with charges of a guy lieing about his sex life. (Wow, that never happens... ). So much for the dignity of the Oral...I mean Oval Office.

And Michael Moore, fresh from his success from Columbine, decides to use his cinematic skills - and a penchant for manipulating information - to torpedo GW. Well...at least the guy was honest about his intentions, if not his means.

And now The Swift Boat Veterans speed into the picture. No, they say, Kerry's record is not legitimate. His wounds were superficial at best. (One guy who claims to have treated one of the wounds says so in the TV ad) He got 3 purple hearts to get out early (4 months). And then he claimed to witness the kinds of war crimes in testimony to Congress that the VC tortured out of patriotic POWs. So they say... There are two TV ads out now. One torpedoes Kerry's war record. The other speaks to the devastating psychological effects of his testimony on the already fragile psyche of Vietnam Vets. (As if our country didn't screw them over enough...).

"We have a guy who started out fabricating us as war criminals, fabricating even himself as war criminals. He has now moved on to fabricating himself as a war hero."
-- John O'Neill, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

"John Kerry earned every one of those medals. We were with him for the Bronze Star and the Silver Star. We validate, we authenticate, you know, his right to receive those medals."
-- Del Sandusky, an officer who served alongside Kerry

"I deplore this kind of politics. I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable... Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam."
-- Sen. John McCain R-Ariz., Vietnam veteran

Tour of Duty

Swiftvets.com

Disinfopedia

Letter to John Kerry

Hmmm...

The truth?

A great right wing conspiracy?

Fair politics?

I yield the floor.

- Bill

[Panther]

Interesting how people are told that it's Michael Moore's right to make any film any way he wishes... present it as a factual documentary regardless of provable flaws... and anyone who disagrees or speaks against it is attacked in a number of ways. YET, when a group goes after the left's latest darling, complaints are filed with the FCC, the group is attacked in a number of ways, the group is automatically claimed (regardless of all evidence to the contrary) that they are working "under-cover" for the opposition, and any number of other claims against the group are dug up or made up... and that's OK. As you said Bill, what's good for the goose...

[IJ]

The most ridiculous thing about this is that we're discussing Kerry's war record at all. Here's a loser who only went to Vietnam and commanded a swift boat and got a bunch of decorations, and depending on how you feel, tried to get home early after he was wounded and was in his rights to do so--not one other vet in Vietnam did THAT.

Mean while, GW's war record is being totally ignored. This warrior secured an extremely dangerous spot in the national guard, pulling as many strings as possible to put himself in harm's way! Then, because he wanted to use a free ticket to business school and the world of politics, he basically vanished into the steaming, VC swarming jungles of the southeast united states, where he might have gotten any numer of cases of malaria and yellow fever. And he was so busy defending our intrastate highway system or soemthing he barely had time to seek care for these afflictions at his base, coming back at most for a measly dental appointment. No one could find a person who remembered GW sitting around the base on his duff, that's for sure! He was out there somewhere, and gosh darn it if the liberal media spends all their press time on inflating Kerry's record and commenting on how vaguely French he looks.

That's not right!

[Panther]

Ian, while your sarcasm is good, the fact is that Bush's record was made into a big deal by the liberals and the media. It was extremely well researched and scrutinized and they found that it was a non-story. Bush and the Bush campaign have stated that they do not and will not question Kerry's service... and that they are not affiliated with the Vets putting out these ads, book, website, etc. The Bush campaign has stated on a number of occasions that they feel that there are enough differences in the positions of the candidates that they will focus on that... and the fact that often Kerry is on both sides of an issue. The Bush campaign has also distanced itself from these groups and charges... and those who are supporting these Veterans groups have said that they are independent of the current administration as well.

On the other hand, even though the Kerry campaign and the DNC have stated that they are not affiliated with Michael Moore, they went to the screening of his movie, did photo-ops together and "off-the-record" said they supported him.

So... My point remains and you seem to have inadvertently proven it...

The point I made was that it is interesting to watch how upset those on the left are getting about these commercials and these groups, when those on the left were admonishing those on the right who complained about Michael Moore, his obvious lies, his distortions, his cinematic trickery and his claim that his films are "documentaries" when they are clearly his propaganda. I ended with, "what's good for the goose..."

In other words, those on the left think that any tactic they take is fair, but when the tables are turned they start crying foul. It appears their hypocracy knows no bounds!

[Gene DeMambro]

Bush and the Bush campaign have stated that they do not and will not question Kerry's service... and that they are not affiliated with the Vets putting out these ads, book, website, etc. The Bush campaign has also distanced itself from these groups and charges... and those who are supporting these Veterans groups have said that they are independent of the current administration as well.

Bush adviser quits after appearing in swift boat ad


In as much as there ever should have been a controversy at all, this will dispell it completely:
Vietnam swift boat skipper comes to Kerry’s defense

Vietnam swift boat skipper comes to Kerry’s defense
By Bryan Bender and Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | August 22, 2004

WASHINGTON -- The Naval officer who commanded a swift boat alongside John F. Kerry on the day for which Kerry won his Silver Star in the Vietnam War broke his 35-year silence yesterday to defend the Democratic presidential candidate's military record, saying that a group of veterans charging Kerry didn't deserve some of his battlefield awards are telling ''untrue" stories about what happened....

Case closed.

The Bush campaign has filed their own FEC complaints against the Kerry campaign and Democratic leaning 527's. Happens every election year.

It was extremely well researched and scrutinized and they found that it was a non-story.

There isn't enough information available to call it a non-story. Some records were lost in a fire, and some were recently - last few weeks - discovered. But no new light was shed on the subject.

his claim that his films are "documentaries" when they are clearly his propaganda

Moore never claimed "9/11" was a documentary. He calls it clearly "polemical". The documentary monaker is instilled by others. And see Dana's wonderful post about great documentaries from the past that clearly were not neutral in the eyes of their producers.

The most ridiculous thing about this is that we're discussing Kerry's war record at all.

Quite true. It's all unseemly. Just tells me exactly what Republicans think of people who are not lock-step with their own views...and what they truly think of veterans.

Gene

[Doug Erickson]

The truth?

A great right wing conspiracy?

Fair politics?

"The truth" and "fair politics" are two concepts that seem to go by the boards in election years.

First, as someone who is slightly to the right of center, I feel like *both* sides are hypocritical, *both* sides cry foul constantly, and *both* sides try my patience with sub-kindergarten-level bickering. And I think people on both sides tend to give their party's transgressions a pass while seizing on the other side's.

On topic, as long as Bush has no ties to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and their like, those groups can say whatever they want. Michael Moore, a private citizen, decided to create and release a full length film, in an election year, that is simply a hatchet job on the president, with the stated goal of persuading viewers to vote Bush out of office. The film has since been shown to be rife with lies, omissions, and deceptions (not unlike the rest of his body of work), and if groups of private citizens who support Bush want to raise money to air ads that attack Kerry, more power to them. My guess is those ads don't even come close to balancing out the damage that F911 did to Bush in terms of converting fence-sitting voters. And besides, aren't left-leaners the ones who say that if you think what's on TV is offensive, that no one is forcing you to watch it, and that the solution is not censorship, but rather simply changing the channel?

I'd just say Kerry has no more right to demand that Bush speak out against the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads than Bush has to demand that Kerry denounce F911. I have no idea whether the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads tell the truth or not, but in my opinion, F911, with its well-documented deceits, set a precedent of third parties taking extreme measures to affect the outcome of the election. It's patently ludicrous for Kerry to stand by silently and be the beneficiary of a piece of propaganda attacking Bush that millions of people saw, and then say Bush should put a muzzle on counter-attacks from groups with which Bush has no affiliation.

Unfortunately, this is the reality of election year politics, has been for a long time, and should come as no surprise to any candidate. You know going in that it gets dirty, and if you can't handle it--no matter which side you're on--then it's unwise to throw your hat in the ring in the first place.

[Bill Glasheen]

Good comments by all.

It's worth reminding folks that there are TWO ads here. The one that generates the most counter arguments is the ad (and the book) that counter's Kerry's story of a "PT109-like" swift boat experience.

The following ad, however, is quite different. This ad uses tape of Kerry's testimony to Congress. They are his own words, using his own voice.

Sellout
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Kerry: “They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads. . .”

Joe Ponder: “The accusations that John Kerry made against the veterans who served in Vietnam was just devastating.”

John Kerry: “. . . randomly shot at civilians. . .”

Joe Ponder: “It hurt me more than any physical wounds I had.”

John Kerry: “. . . cut off limbs, blown up bodies. . .”

Ken Cordier: “That was part of the torture, was, uh, to sign a statement that you had committed war crimes.”

John Kerry: “. . . razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan. . .”

Paul Gallanti: “John Kerry gave the enemy for free what I, and many of my, uh, comrades in North Vietnam, in the prison camps, uh, took torture to avoid saying. It demoralized us.”

John Kerry: “. . . crimes committed on a day to day basis. . . ”

Ken Cordier: “He betrayed us in the past, how could we be loyal to him now?”

John Kerry: “. . . ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam.”

Paul Gallanti: “He dishonored his country, and, uh, more, more importantly the people he served with. He just sold them out.”

Announcer : “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is responsible for the content of this advertisement.”

Senator Kerry himself says he regrets this testimony.

What can you say about this? Is he a hero for standing up for what is right? Certainly I must include myself among those who spoke out against the war in its latter years. If so, then he can't also be the pristine war hero who defended his country. Indeed he testified that he committed some of these atrocities. And he certainly must face those many veterans of the war who came home to an abusive country and suffered some of the worst PTSD disability of any modern army.

It's like running a trial in court. A judge may rule that certain character-related evidence is "off limits" for the prosecution. But the minute the defense says something like "Mr. Jones has an impeccable reputation in his community," then that restraining order is null and void. The gloves are off, and all information may be brought in as evidence.

Meet the Press today was fascinating. It started with the chairmen of each of the election committees commenting on the Swift Boat ads and finished with Sen. Allen, R-VA & Sen. Corzine, D-NJ commenting on these and other election-related events. Several times Tim Russert asked the representative of the Republican side if he would denounce the Swift Boat ads. Repeatedly the comment was 'We denounce the use of ALL ads produced with soft money.' That didn't seem good enough either for Russert, or for the Democratic representative in the interview. At one point in fact, the Democratic campaign rep finished his comment about Iraq with a jab at a president leading a military into war who never has been in combat.

What's legitimate? What's off limits? It's fascinating watching all these arguments playing out.

And it isn't pretty.

- Bill

[IJ]

Kerry's testimony is what it is, or was; it pissed off some veterans. Do we doubt there were atrocities committed in Vietnam? Should we all have said nothing about them? I'm sure there are some veterans who just as surely as pissed off at GW for taking a free ride away from any danger.

As for claims that Kerry's war exploits were fabricated, they're not the mirror image of 911. Moore's films are made with stated objectives and released with disclaimers that they're not even supposed to be balanced. It's well known what his slant is and that he is more of a painter than a photographer. On the other hand, these ads (unless they're later proven true) are attacks disguised as honest reports on the candidate. They are positioning themselves as fact; Moore didn't quite do that.

Even then, I'm a touch confused about the actual charge that forms the bulk of this thread... When 911 came out the right was pissed and the left looked the other way; now the left is pissed and the right is chuckling. So what? Who are we talking about anyway--specific individuals or "those collective leftists" again? I for one was annoyed with Moore because of his liberties with reality and I'm annoyed with these ads because they mock Kerry's war record with some as yet unproven allegations when AT LEAST HE HAS ONE.

We hear over and over that the liberal media selectively amplifies stories of interest to them. How did I hear on national news that there were charges that Clinton had orchestrated murders? A fanciful lie that was pushed into the media and then became a story because he had to respond to it. Not the only example of an event like that... and on the other hand, there are tons of little events the Bush camp would like us to forget that the media hasn't made any efforts to correct... there are little things like the broadside he fired against the publication of showing flag draped iraqi war dead coffins when he'd shown flag draped coffins in an ad exploiting 91 for political gain, for one. Then we have a ton of errors ranging from doing nothing about abu ghraib for months to not apologizing for it to fixating on Iraq's role in 911 which has gotten a large fraction of americans confused about whether they were involved or not, a mistake the media has evidently been unable to correct. I've heard little about the now fully revised reasons we're at war in the first place.

Maybe the media is just full of morons and they get both sides of every story wrong and individuals get annoyed by the wrong things that bother them the most.

[Bill Glasheen]

• On Sunday, former Kansas senator Bob Dole called on Kerry to apologize for 1971 testimony before Congress in which he accused U.S. forces in Vietnam of atrocities. Appearing on CNN's Late Edition, Dole also questioned the severity of the injuries for which Kerry received his Purple Hearts. "Three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of," Dole said of Kerry.

• William Rood, an editor at the Chicago Tribune who served with Kerry, broke a 35-year silence to write an article in the newspaper's Sunday editions supporting Kerry's account of winning the Silver Star. (Related story: Vet backs Kerry's account)

In the book Unfit for Command, written by the Swift Boat Veterans, several of Kerry's former Navy colleagues say he killed only a "lone, fleeing, teenage Viet Cong in a loincloth" in the incident for which he earned the medal. Rood writes that Kerry killed "a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC (Viet Cong) usually wore."

• A previously silent participant in the March 1969 incident that led to Kerry's Bronze Star and his third Purple Heart told the Washington Post that Kerry did come under enemy fire. "There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river," Wayne Langhofer, who was on the boat directly behind Kerry's, told the newspaper. The swift boat group has argued that there was no hostile fire.

The Bronze Star citation for another participant in the incident, Robert Eugene Lambert, stated that "all units came under small arms and automatic weapons fire," according to records obtained by The Nation magazine.

- USA Today

Check out the reader comments in the Barnes & Noble Unfit for Command. Also note that the book is "temporarily out of stock." Very interesting comments as well at Amazon.

- Bill

[benzocaine]

I thought it would be good to post the comments on the first page of the Barnes and Noble link Bill provided. I will underline what I find interesting.

BTW. I remember when Bill Weld and Kerry fought for the senate seat Kerry has now. I have to say I like Bill Weld. I remember how another attack group questioned Kerrys service in Vietnam and Weld had the decency to seperate himself from it. Well here's the page....

Norm Sahm, a music teacher., August 18, 2004,
Read It for Yourself - then Decide!
The story these men tell deserves to be heard and evaluated. It's hard to ignore the sworn testimony of all these Veterans who served along with John Kerry. I highly recommend this book.

Wife of Disabled Vet, A reviewer, August 18, 2004,
A must read!
It's only fair to investigate both candidates in this controversial election of 2004. This book left me reeling with it's amazing documentation, footnoting and named sources. I have just a few questions: if the allegations are false, then why won't Kerry address them himself and show us the evidence? Why won't he release ALL his military records (as he so often demanded George Bush do???) The fact is that if Kerry has nothing to hide, then why is he hiding?? And as of this writing, one of the allegations from this book have been proven true (Christmas in Cambodia 1968). It's got to make you wonder.

A reviewer, A reviewer, August 18, 2004,
Putrid & Partisan
Let's talk about impartial reporting and politically-driven character assassination. FACT: The author of this book never worked with John Kerry. FACT: The author was appointed by Nixon to attack anti-war Vets. (Please note: Anti-War Vets were not anti-Vet; they were anti-WAR --which should be the default setting of every any decent military man worth his Annapolis or West Point degree). FACT: The author does not produce any testimony from sailors who were lead by Kerry. FACT: This book has been put out by an avowedly right wing publisher that has published wild, ridiculous, hateful claims against other Democrats. CONCLUSION: You can talk about this being a balanced, eye-opening report. Or you can read it all with a pillar of salt, fully aware that Mr. O'Neil has an agenda to discredit John Kerry anyway he can, especially with regard to the one unassailable difference between our WAR PRESIDENT and his adversay, WAR HERO John Kerry. Once you realize the agenda fueling this book, all its 'reporting' comes accross as nothing but selective vendetta by a Republican lapdog who has no decency...[/] And speaking of decency, whatever happened to honest, giving Rockefeller republicans, anyway? Sigh.

Tony, political junkie, August 18, 2004,
Yawn !!
Alrighty, those of you that give this more than 2 stars are buying into the typical right wing (BS) campaign. Just like they ran against McCain in 2000. If you think this is all true by folks whom did not serve with Kerry I feel deeply sorry for you. But, as I know about human nature we believe what we want to believe ,which is sad b/c we will always believe the worst instead of the positive. This O'Neill dude has been after Kerry for thirty years. The amount of hate and venom he shows in interviews is enough to have him institionalized for years. I hope Kerry wins b/c thanks to Bush this country needs 'brain surgery'. You might as well read the National Enquirer too. Kerry served by the way.. Where was GW Bush. Cheney with 4 deferments. Folks, we need to get our priorities straight for heaven's sake. This campaign by the SBVFT will backfire. Kerry distanced himself from the attacks on Bush's military service. Did Bush ? Nah, he said we should crack down on all 527 groups. Now isn't he smooth ?? Read on, my fellow Americans and if you run out of 'Charmin'....... Not sure if this paper in this book is 2-ply.

[Panther]

Ballad Of The French Berets
August 18, 2004

There ought to be a special word -- something German -- to describe the feeling of revulsion normal people experience when reading lines like these from a single article on John Kerry by Laura Blumenfeld in The Washington Post:

-- "Kerry's complexity has been an issue since his national debut in 1971."

-- "Kerry likes to quote the French writer Andre Gide: 'Don't try to understand me too quickly.'"

-- "His friend Dan Barbiero said it comes down to Kerry's complexity ..."

By Ann Coulter

(Apparently, Kerry's answers on the LSAT were too nuanced and complex for the Harvard Law School admissions committee: Despite all his connections, fancy education and war-protesting, Kerry couldn't get into Harvard Law School and went to Boston College Law School instead. Wait -- didn't Kerry throw that famous, game-winning "Hail Mary" pass while playing quarterback for Boston College back in the '80s? Or am I thinking of somebody else? Let's ask Doug Brinkley!)

-- "Flying to his next campaign stop, he chatted about maneuvers to avoid flak in combat."

-- "This was Primal John ... who ran with the bulls at Pamplona and, when trampled, got up, chased the bull, and grabbed for its horns."

(I'm almost sure this was a polite reference to John and Teresa's honeymoon night.)

The problem with a ******-up press for Democrats is that with no adversary press to call them on it, Democrats develop wilder and wilder Walter Mitty fantasy lives until finally one day, when they are at the zenith of their political careers, someone notices that they're not Irish, they didn't deserve their war medals, 254 Swift Boat veterans hate them, and they didn't spend Christmas Eve, 1968, in Cambodia. (Or that they are white-trash serial molesters and unrepentant rapists who somehow talked their way into an Arkansas governorship.)

The Boston Globe biography of Kerry published earlier this year compliantly repeats Kerry's yarn about how he spent Christmas 1968 in Cambodia "despite President Nixon's assurances that there was no combat action in this neutral territory."

Only recently did someone point out: (1) Kerry was 55 miles away from the Cambodian border on Christmas 1968 and (2) Nixon wasn't president in 1968. (How did "historian" Doug Brinkley miss that in his biography of Kerry?)

The media will spend weeks going through pay stubs for Bush's National Guard service in Alabama in the waning days of war, but if Kerry tells them exotic tales of covert missions into Cambodia directed by Richard Nixon, they don't even bother to fact-check who was president in December 1968.

Tom Harkin, Crazed Moron, was shouting this week that Dick Cheney is a "coward," evidently for not fighting in Vietnam like Harkin. Except Harkin didn't fight in Vietnam either! The last time Harkin was bragging about his Vietnam service was in 1984 when he told David Broder of The Washington Post: "I spent five years as a Navy pilot, starting in November of 1962. One year was in Vietnam. I was flying F-4s and F-8s on combat air patrols and photo-reconnaissance support missions."

Sen. Barry Goldwater -- not the Post -- checked with the Defense Department and soon Harkin was forced to admit he had never been in combat in Vietnam, but was based in Japan during the war, ferrying damaged planes from the Saigon airport to Japan for repairs. Oops!

Then there was Al Gore who, like Kerry, was in Vietnam just long enough to get photos for his future political campaigns. (Apparently all future Democratic politicians take cameras to war zones.)

Gore enlisted in the Army in 1970 in a calculated gambit to help his senator dad in an election year. Young Al was given a cushy job writing for the Stars and Stripes newspaper, a bodyguard, and an exit strategy when Pops lost the election. After five months of this hygienic tour of duty, Little Lord Fauntleroy asked to come home, and before long he was safe and sound and preparing to flunk out of divinity school and then drop out of law school.

But over the next 30 years, Gore provided the media with increasingly macho reminiscences of his combat experiences in Vietnam -- almost as vivid and stirring as the impassioned account he gave of being a tobacco farmer.

-- "I pulled my turn on the perimeter at night and walked through the elephant grass and I was fired upon." (The Baltimore Sun)

-- "I took my turn regularly on the perimeter in these little firebases out in the boonies. Something would move, we'd fire first and ask questions later." (Vanity Fair)

-- "I was shot at. I spent most of my time in the field." (The Washington Post)

I think someone needs to explain to the Democrats that having your picture taken is not what most veterans mean by "being shot at."

During World War II, then-congressman Lyndon Johnson went on a single flight -- as an observer -- for which he was awarded the Silver Star by Gen. Douglas MacArthur. Only recently has it been exposed that the medal was a complete fraud, probably awarded by MacArthur to curry favor with a congressman.

At the time, no one in the press bothered to investigate why Johnson was the only member of the crew to receive any sort of decoration for the 13-minute flight that never came under enemy fire -- and on which Johnson was merely an "observer." For the rest of his life Johnson got away with wearing what historian David Halberstam called "the least deserved and most proudly displayed Silver Star in military history."

Johnson told harrowing tales of his uneventful 13-minute flight, boasting that the men had called him "Raider Johnson." One time he harangued a congressman on foreign aid, saying: "I know foreign aid is unpopular, but I didn't want to go to the Pacific in '41 after Pearl Harbor, but I did. I didn't want to let those Japs shoot at me ... but I did."

The sole surviving member of the crew, Ret. Staff Sgt. Bob Marshall, U.S. Army, a gunner on the plane, disputed Johnson's story about being attacked by Japanese Zeros: "No way. No, that story was made up ... we had never seen a Zero. It was never attacked. There was nothing."

If only talk radio and cable TV had been around in the '60s, we'd be able to hear James Carville call Bob Marshall a liar and watch the Democratic National Committee threaten to sue any TV station that aired his story.

[Bill Glasheen]

A few words of warning... (from a guy just expressing an opinion, BTW).

One needs to be very careful reading comments and opinions. If I turn Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage on, it takes no longer than about five minute to hear the word "liberal" tossed about as a pejorative. Savage likes to say that liberalism is a disease. A lot of times he thinks Bush is too liberal (he is in fact a relatively moderate Republican). Fine... At least I know where they are coming from. Agree with my point of view, or you are a liberal.

Similarly, if I read a comment on Barnes & Noble that use phrases like "Republican lapdog" and "typical right wing (BS) campaign", then the same red flag should pop up.

Another comment... Barnes & Noble shows an "average" rating of 4.5 stars (for 54 reviews), and yet they show two 5 star and two 1 star reviews. This isn't representative of the comments then, is it? Thus the review samples are what a statistician might generously describe as a "stratified random sample." One might also conclude that the person operating Barnes & Noble's website to be showing a Kerry bias.

Amazon gives an average readership rating of 4 stars, with the 4 sampled reviews averaging 4.75. Conservative bias? Maybe. Or maybe they know they will sell more books if they show reviews that speak highly of the book.

One might expect the readership of Unfit for Command to be as biased a sample of the general population as the population that saw Farenheit 911. With the book on Kerry, many of the faithful are not likely to read it. In the case of F911, Moore's reputation as a liberal is well documented with movies such as Columbine and books like Stupid White Men. Furthermore, his manipulation of information is pretty well documented by those with different political leanings.

Bottom line - consider the source, and consider the reputation for dealing with information. Also check to see how well documented the material is. Unfit for Command at least is footnoted with a generous bibliogragy. It's possible to check the facts used to weave the story together, even with the author having an anti-Kerry agenda.

A few other details... Polls that require folks to submit their opinions voluntarily aren't random samples by any stretch of the imagination. Also, a person may rate the book low and hate Kerry, or rate the book highly and like Kerry. Usually this wouldn't be the case as the material and the election are quite polarizing. But there is one 4 star review on Amazon that seems quite balanced, indicating that this might be a decent book from an objective point of view. Maybe...

Just reading the tea leaves.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

This is the review by the Amazon reviewer. One should remember that this guy's agenda might just be to sell books. But it at least puts three unique points of view on the table to be considered.

Amazon.com

Due to the timing of its publication, Unfit for Command could be dismissed as the sort of controversial, loaded book typical in a presidential election year: Either courageous and necessary, or untruthful and malicious, depending on one's political point of view. Filled with interviews of men who served in Vietnam at the same time as John Kerry, the book poses the following question: "Why do an overwhelming majority of those who commanded or served with John Kerry oppose him?" (Note that the issue of "service" has sparked investigation into its definition--in other words, just how close was the interaction between Kerry and those cited in the book during Kerry’s Vietnam tour of duty?)

The charges leveled against Kerry in this book are severe and include filing false operating reports; lobbying for and receiving three Purple Hearts for minor wounds, two of which were self-inflicted; receiving a Silver Star under false pretenses; offering false confessions of bogus war crimes in both print and testimony; and recklessness in the field, including the burning of a village without cause or direct order. The book also claims that Kerry left Vietnam after serving just four months instead of the usual one year tour and that he returned home and accused his fellow soldiers of atrocities without offering any evidence, endangering POWs in the process.

It is debatable whether the book will change any minds, or votes. Instead, readers will likely reach one of two conclusions: Either John Kerry grossly misrepresented his military service or the authors are spinning the interviews that they conducted for ulterior motives. There is a third option, however; readers will further investigate both sides of the debate, and by doing so, may reach conclusions independent of partisan extremes.

--Brian Neff

- Bill

[benzocaine]

Video link of someone I wanted in the Whitehouse rebuking G.W. Bush. You have to click "Play" to start the video.

If and when it's out on the internet I'll also be posting a very interesting video clip that I saw on "The Daily Show" last night. It shows two video clips. The first is of one of the Swift Boat Veterans for truth saying on their comercial that Kerry is unfit for comand. The second is of the same man standing next to Kerry 8 years ago supporting him saying how brave Kerry was in battle, and how Kerry would turn his boat into the gunfire.

So what kind of conclusion could be drawn here??????

[cxt]

Ben

Good question.

Saw an interview this morning about that very topic.

The guy just plain changed his mind.

Which given that Kerry was vs the war, then for the war, then vs the war, and he ALSO said Saddam had WMD's then he said he didn't, he owns an SUV--speaking in front of carmakers, he DOES NOT own an SUV speaking to the greens.
He was in Cambodia on Christmas, he was NOT in Cambodia during Christmas.
He had persoanl knowloge of war crimes commited by US troops during Vietnam, he did NOT have personal knowloge of war crimes commited by our troops during Vietnam.

I'd do more but my fingers are getting tired.

Bottom line I really don't think the Kerry camp has room to be pointing fingers about folks changeing their minds.

Little to much glass in that particular house to be throwing stones at others

I have yet to hear ANYONE of note from the other side publically decry the dreck of Moores movie being passed off as a "documentary."

A very broad use of the term at best. Considering the level of deception, spin, and mistake of facts that he calls "documentary."