Comments on: Spinology

By: dsquared

dsquared — Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:04:42 +0000

By the way, if we’re being pedantic here, “baby killers” would be a lie and a smear if applied to specific named American soldiers who did not kill babies, but as a general characterisation of the US armed forces in Vietnam, it’s neither. There certainly were baby killers in that organisation, and they were not dealt with.

By: David Sucher

David Sucher — Sat, 07 Feb 2004 03:17:01 +0000

Ophelia has nailed it. We are indeed in for an exciting year. I would never have thought that I’d be going to another Democratic caucus but—and I put off skiing, so you know it was a sacrifice—I am going to mine in Seattle tomorrow. Bring it on.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 23:53:40 +0000

Huh. You left out the bit about propaganda in wartime this time. Wassamatta, arnchoo worried about the VC invading any more? ‘Smearing.’ That’s another one like ‘demonize’ – one of those irregular verbs, in fact. I criticize, you attack, she demonizes, they smear.

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 23:45:42 +0000

Katherine wrote:

There are proveable inaccuracies in his attacks on Kerry, too

Really, like what?

So to people on the right: This is not a trustworthy guy, and not a guy you want on your side. Do not believe his charges against Kerry, or another right wing opinion site’s repetition of his charges, without independent confirmation.

I seem to recall a couple of months ago when Katherine was leading a smear campaign on her blog against Judge Charles Pickering and she posted all sorts of (often selectively edited) garbage from Far Left groups like PFAW without “independent confirmation.” Regardless though of whether Kerry does or does not deserve the honor he received for his military service, his actions upon returning to the United States including his smearing of American servicemen, his attempt to slash military funding while we were still fighting the Vietnam War, his attempt to gut the CIA during the mid-1990s (while later complaining about the lack of quality intelligence), his generally pro-soviet leanings during the Cold War in the 1980s, his willingness to let Saddam Hussein keep the Kuwaiti oil fields, his attempt to cut off support for our troops in Iraq now, his smearing of our allies in the war, and his opportunistic waffling on the War (much like his throwing of someone else’s medals over the capitol gates) all demonstrate that he is utterly unfit to serve as Commander in Chief.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 23:04:38 +0000

“I don’t think these attacks will work; I think they could backfire severely.” It’s so seldom that this kind of thing does backfire on the Republicans. Very rarely it does, as Trent Lott noticed. But mostly – it works just the way they want it to. They’ll manage to make Kerry into an elitist draft-dodger and W into the brave little guy who fought in his place. See above. Bush took greater risks staying home than Gore did going to Vietnam. They’ll say anything. Anything.

By: Hypocrisy Fumigator

Hypocrisy Fumigator — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 22:36:37 +0000

What everybody fails to appreciate here is that repetition of message is the key to it being absorbed. Unlike all of us overeducated and overinformed intellectuals, most voters don’t know much about the candidates personally. And with every new speech venue comes many new audience members. So it’s too easy for coverage obsessed people like us to say, “hey, he’s using that line again.” What that really is is “message discipline.” Something which George W. Bush is very good at, and which the Democrats’ last nominee was exceptionally poor at. Kerry seems to understand message discipline, and chastising him for it is a fundamental misunderstanding.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 22:04:21 +0000

rea—you’ve got me. Gore actually went to Vietnam. Say, which do you think is riskier: flying combat planes full time for 2 years (not in combat), or spending less than 6 months as a journalist in Vietnam, with guards? Should we compare the statistics?

By: Katherine

Katherine — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 21:13:05 +0000

By the way, it’s not just Newsmax. The National Review has also linked approvingly to Sampley’s website. Here: http://www.nationalreview.com/kob/kob200401280858.asp “So, I wondered, where are the fully informed veterans who remember Kerry’s lies and smears? Here they are: “Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry”. The website chronicles John Kerry’s antiwar activism.” I’m sure all the people who were, um, zealously defending the National Review to Ted Barlow a few days back have some equally convincing reasons why this is okay….

By: Katherine

Katherine — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 20:59:30 +0000

This is mildly off topic, but: a lot of far-right publications—Newsmax and the like—have already started smearing Kerry’s Vietnam record, and it’s being picked up on some blogs. A lot of the charges appear to originate from a site called “Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry”, run by a guy named Ted Sampley. I expect to see much, much more of them if Kerry becomes our nominee. So it’s worth saying now: Sampley is so far from a credible source it is ridiculous. Kerry, along with John McCain, is on his shit list for his role in opening relations with Vietnam in early 1990s, which some veterans opposed passionately because they believed Vietnam was hiding things about POWs, some of whom they claim may still be alive. From what I understand, there’s not much evidence for this, and restoring relations with Vietnam has allowed the U.S. to finally recover the remains of many, many soliders and a few civilians (the most famous of these may be Charles Dean, Howard Dean’s younger brother.) In any case, Sampley has been making vicious, immoral charges against McCain for over a decade now. He calls him the Manchurian candidate, alleged that he lied about being tortured, says he collaborated with the Viet Cong and only escaped court martial and got medals because of his connections….It is despicable stuff, which I hesitate to even post the link to—but people may not take my word for this, so: http://www.usvetdsp.com/mccainpg.htm There are proveable inaccuracies in his attacks on Kerry, too—the reason I mention McCain is that people who are ready to believe the worst of Kerry for protesting are probably less willing to believe these charges against McCain. So to people on the right: This is not a trustworthy guy, and not a guy you want on your side. Do not believe his charges against Kerry, or another right wing opinion site’s repetition of his charges, without independent confirmation. (I don’t think these attacks will work; I think they could backfire severely. But you never know—look at Cleland or McCain in South Carolina—and I’m sure they will spread if not refuted.)

By: Anthony

Anthony — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 20:31:22 +0000

Collin Levey fails to draw an important distinction: Kerry can use his military service record as a character issue against Bush. If John Kerry sticks to mentioning his service in Vietnam in the context of whether John Kerry is an honorable man, whether John Kerry is a Patriotic American, etc., etc., and lets people like James Carville and Michael Moore tarnish Bush's character by exaggerating the badness of his National Guard record, Kerry's Vietnam service can be quite an asset in the campaign. However, if Kerry gives the impression that his decisions on foreign policy in the 2000s are primarily informed by his service as a foot-soldier in Vietnam, he will be wide open to the charge of being stuck in the past and not facing the issues of today, as well as to the criticism that Clark raised - that being a general in the 1990s gives one a much better handle on the issues that the president will face in the 2000s than did being a liutenant in the 1960s. The times, they have a'changed, and if Kerry dwells on Vietnam, he'll look like someone who didn't change with them. Kerry does, however, need to avoid giving the impression he gave Garry Trudeau back in 1971.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 19:46:17 +0000

Likewise, I think it’s absolutely essential that Bush not appear to be boasting about his war record. What’s that? He doesn’t have one? Or not one he’s willing to share? Oh. Well, maybe he can prance around in a flight suit or something.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 18:45:44 +0000

Demonize’ is one of the first words I put in the Fashionable Dictionary, I think. did you? bloody well done. I’ve always hated it too.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 18:17:48 +0000

“helping to provide propaganda for the VC during a time of war” The treasonous bastard! When the VC were massing in their millions off Montauk and Carmel, hours away from the invasion! That bastard!!

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 18:06:06 +0000

Thomas wrote:

Kieran, I think this is rather good advice, so I’d be happy if Kerry didn’t take it. A fat lot of good it did for Bush I and Dole…

Good point, I would also add though that Kerry is in a unique situation in that if he continues to try to draw attention to his service as a soldier in Vietnam he will also draw heightened scrutiny to his post-service activities – particularly his slandering of American servicemen during Congressional hearings, his opportunistic staging of the “throwing of the medals over the gate” (while making sure to keep his own for the time when it became politically expedient to be a Vietnam veteran), helping to provide propaganda for the VC during a time of war, and attempting to cut military spending while we were still involved in the Vietnam War. Vietnam in total could turn out to be more of a political liability for Kerry than an asset.

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 18:03:57 +0000

Keith M Ellis wrote:

I was just complaining this morning about how Bush has gotten a pass with his Vietnam-era experience while Clinton was pummeled. But when you consider how many Democrats complain that any Democrat that supported the Iraq invasion is “really a Republican”, you can see why the general public scrutinizes Democratic candidates with a different standard—and some cynicism—than they do Republicans.

Good point. While I would not go so far as Ann Coulter to refer to Democrats as the “Treason Party,” I do agree with Arnold Kling that when it comes to foreign policy in particular they the “UN Party” whilst Republicans (even though many like Bush are avidly pro-UN but not to the point of stupidity) are the “US Party.” There is a real concern and not undeservedly so that the Democratic Party is no longer a serious party when it comes to foreign policy and cannot be trusted with national security. IMNHO Kerry is the front-runner largely because many Democrats (a) recognize that Howard Dean and his supporters would rightfully be seen by the American electorate as lunatics and (b) there is a hope that because Kerry was a veteran while Bush was in the National Guard, that he might have some gravitas to challenge Bush in the area of foreign policy. The problem though is that Kerry’s own record on foreign policy would probably be interpreted as (a) weak on national security in general (voting against Desert Storm; more pro-Soviet than pro-America during the Cold War, trying to cut the CIA budget in 1996, trying to cut military spending during the Vietnam War, etc.) or in the few instances where he might look strong on national defense, it seems his votes were determined more by the political winds (Afghanistan, Iraq) than any core conviction. Frankly, his deficits when it comes to foreign policy by far outweigh any of the medals he did not throw over the capitol gate.