« Mob rule | Main | Getting to work on Rural transport »

Debunked

As I have noted be for the UK media, including The Times, routinely dimisses the Swift Boat Vet allegations as being "debunked". Which is not my impression of the truth so:

BeldarBlog: A challenge to those who claim that the SwiftVets' allegations have been "debunked" or are "unsubstantiated"

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

is interesting, and so far the answer is NO.

Comments

Ahh! The old prove a negative scam, by which logic there are fairies a the bottom of my garden!

That said, Kerry was very stupid to put so much emphasis on a war record that was always going to be heavily scrutinised and attacked (spuriously or not). And it's thirty years ago: how many Americans still vote on the basis of conflict that old?

The so-called "proved debunked" is also an attempt to prove a negative, so it's equally a scam.
I would and will vote on the basis of Kerry's shameful, selfish, and stupid acts of betrayal and treating with the enemy that affected his fellow soldiers who were still serving, including POWs, following his return from Vietnam.

The smearboat liars have made very few falsifiable claims, but many of the claims thay have made have been comprehensively debunked.

For example the claim that 200 of Kerry's former collegues support their campaign has been proven false after several of the veterans listed by the group as supporters were contacted by the media and denied having ever given permission for their names to be used.

The organizer of the group has denied categorically that Kerry could have been in Cambodia but there is tape of him confirming to then President Nixon that he himself was in Cambodia.

Contemporary documents including a medal citation for one of the accusers confirm that there was enemy fire during the incident in which Kerry earned his bronze star.

All in all not a very credible group. I would consider them as about as credible as the DNC claims that Karl Rove was behind the forged Texas National Guard Memos.

It is rather interesting that the Americans would be concentrating on these issues. If Bush had achievements surely it would be more profitable to be trumpetting those rather than going for these negative attacks (75% of ad spots by the Bush campaign have been negative).

I see the campaign as being very much like the 1992 UK election campaign. It is a poisoned chalice. If Bush wins anything less than the trifecta the next four years are going to be an endless series of Congressional investigations. Bush has made the mistake that Major tried to avoid, he has abandonded the center. The cost of the Major victory in 1992 was that Blair was able to move the Labour party right onto the center ground. As a result Blair is expecting to win his third successive election victory next year and there is not exactly a whole heap of evidence to contradict him.

I don't quite see where Bush's strategy of fags and flags gets him. It certainly isn't either a compasionate or a conservative agenda.

phill: your tirade is quite fascinating to behold. It seems that opponents of Bush on both sides of the pond keep resorting to the same tired tactics of smear.

If only the DNC would come up with some proactive, new policies, - instead of a promise to return to pre-9/11 policies - perhaps then it would be able to sway the key swing states more easily.

The GOP and the neocons have succeeded in pre-empting the left when it comes to implementing policies of radical change. The results may prove to be problematic, but anything is better than a return to the postmodernist multiculturalism of the nineties - which produced 9/11 in the first place.

Keith says: The smearboat liars have made very few falsifiable claims, but many of the claims thay have made have been comprehensively debunked.

Brent responds: None of their claims have been "comprehensively debunked." At best they have been challenged.

Keith continues: For example the claim that 200 of Kerry's former collegues support their campaign has been proven false after several of the veterans listed by the group as supporters were contacted by the media and denied having ever given permission for their names to be used."

Brent responds: Only a handfull of those previously appearing on the original list of SwiftVets agasint Kerry have aksed to have their names removed. Nevertheless, there are still over 200 names on the list.

Keith says: The organizer of the group has denied categorically that Kerry could have been in Cambodia but there is tape of him confirming to then President Nixon that he himself was in Cambodia.

Brent responds: John O'Neil's statement does NOT debunk Kerry's claim. Kerry's campaign has already admitted that Kerry was not in Cambodia in 1968 and that Kerry was wrong to have said so.

Keith says: Contemporary documents including a medal citation for one of the accusers confirm that there was enemy fire during the incident in which Kerry earned his bronze star.

Brent asks: Who wrote those "contemporary documents"? Was it an independant observer or John Kerry, who was OinC that day?

The simple fact remains that none of the SwiftVet claims have been "debunked." Challenged, yes. Debunked, no.

BTW, to those who think that proving something has been debunked is trying to prove a negative, may I suggest you take a class in logic? If John Kerry claims he earned a purple heart in a certain manner and the SwifVets deny that claim. It is NOT proving a negative to prove that Kerry did in fact earn his purple heart in the manner he claimed, thus debunking the SwiftVet claim. What proof is there that John Kerry earned his first purple heart? His commanding officer at the time claims he DENIED the request. Yet Kerry suddenly received the medal 3 months later. Why?

Post a comment