Comments on: Swift Boat Bloggers for Denying the Bleedin’ Obvious

By: elmerfudd

elmerfudd — Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:15:58 +0000

let swift boat vets know what you think: Joe Ponder, (352) 473-2451, 6986, Deer Springs Rd, Keystone Heights, FL 32656 George M Elliott, (302) 645-5071, 124 Gills Neck Rd, Lewes, DE 19958 Adrian Lonsdale, (508) 758-4046, , Mattapoisett, MA 02739 Van Odell, (281) 395-1703, 1622, Crescent Point Dr, Katy, TX 77494 Grant W Hibbard, (850) 932-7001, 3830 Bangkok Cv, Gulf Breeze, FL 32563 Letson Louis E Dr Jr, (256) 259-1555, 323 Parks Ave Scottsboro, AL 35768 (256) 259-5580 Roy A Hoffman, (804) 935-0943, 3221 Coppermill Trce, Richmond, VA 23294 John O’Neil (713) 654-7600, 1000 Louisiana St, Houston, TX 77002 John Bare, 422 Mill Creek Road, Bird in Hand, PA 17505 Kenneth Buchholz, (972) 355-7623, 1516 Wildflower Lane, Flower Mound, TX 75028 Jack Chenoweth, (573) 964-6872, 108 Hidden Acres, Lake Ozark, MO 65049 Tom Costarino, (703) 748-1602, 2039 Lord Fairfax Rd, Vienna, VA 22182 Morton Golde, (904) 221-7093, 689 Sandringham Dr, Jacksonville, FL 32225 Charles R. Grutzius, (703) 620-0929, 3221 Wildmere Pl, Herndon, VA 20171 Mike Kovanen, (509) 628-9560, 279 Gage Blvd, Richland, WA 99352 Dennis Spranger, (262) 637-6736, 3000 Olive St, Racine, WI 53405

By: james

james — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 20:19:37 +0000

The swifties statements on this issue have changed over time. Kerry’s statements on this issue have changed over time. Neither side has been 100% consistent. The evidence has supported the swifties on certain charges and Kerry on certain charges. It hasn’t been as one sided as either party is trying to portray. This most likely is a backlash for Kerry’s comments on the Vietnam war. While he was running for office in Massachusetts it wasnt a big issue. Now that he needs votes from a generally more moderate or conservative constituency, its an issue.

By: momo

momo — Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:15:58 +0000

… should have been: consider NOT “above board”, obviously…

By: momo

momo — Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:12:08 +0000

mfb: say again? I don’t get what you’re talking about either. Feeding which trolls? I’m honestly confused now. Anyway, nevermind, you’re so right, whatever you meant. (I guess it should have been soo obvious straight away that commenting on the political views and writing style of Oxblog in a post about the political views and writing style of Oxblog is irrelevant. OK! if that is so, let it be so, and let this irrelevant matter about relevancy be settled once and for all. I also will from now on consider “above board” any mention of Israel at all, in any context, because it would appear that is the country whose politics shall not be named or discussed, even if it’s actually someone else discussing them and you’re merely pointing out their stance on that, which happens to be consistent with their stance on US politics, and with their semantic acrobatics to avoid drawing the inevitable conclusions about the story they’re commenting on. Oh what an outrageous proposition to suggest someone is applying the same right-wing-disguised-as-open-minded approach all across in the way they voice their opinions about their favourite politically compatible positions in different countries. What an absolutely gratuitous reference, really. Totally insensitive and offensive. Of who, I don’t know, but I can only take so much blinding truths in one go.)

By: Ian

Ian — Mon, 23 Aug 2004 11:51:20 +0000

of the Americo-Likudnik persuasion Jim Urquhart, I was beginning to wonder whether your antennae weren’t a bit too sensitive on this issue. Particularly concerning Matt McGrattan, whose reference to Likud seems entirely above board. But now that others are crawling out from under the rock, I see what you are getting at. The locution above (by “MFB”) is a new one to me…

By: MFB

MFB — Mon, 23 Aug 2004 10:27:12 +0000

Well, momo, you’ve been encouraged to make a series of statements on something utterly meaningless and irrelevant, instead of talking about something worthwhile. If I were a right-winger of the Americo-Likudnik persuasion, I should consider getting you to do that on a weblog a job well done. Maybe not feeding the trolls is a good policy decision. Look how it got filthy little Russkie’s smelly panties in a knot! (apologies to any Russians inadvertendly offended; Georgi Zhukov was indeed a jolly good general)

By: momo

momo — Mon, 23 Aug 2004 08:27:31 +0000

Jim, Matt’s original words were simply: “They (Oxblog) appear to take a pro-Bush (and pro-Likud) line on almost everything even if it is couched in slightly less strident rhetoric than others of that ilk.” What’s not clear? Where is the gratuitous part? Doesn’t Israel have a right wing and a left wing too, like America? A right-wing that happens to be at the government there, too? Don’t Oxbloggers write often about Israeli politics too? It’s nothing to do with “good faith”, it’s a statement of fact. When people pretend to be bipartisan yet are overtly supporting the governing right wing, in the US or Israel, they should simply be more honest and stop pretending to be bipartisan and neo-liberal-centrists and whatnot. That’s it. I don’t know why that cannot be said of Oxblog’s views on Israel since they do make a big part of what they wrote about, so it is very relevant to their positions and their habit of cloaking them as moderate and circling around statements with disclaimers about being “open minded”. It’s that simple. That’s not “dragging Israel” into the discussion anymore than Oxblog “drags Israel” into their political commentary! I’m sorry for flogging this horse but I just cannot understand how you can be shocked by a simple observation like that. I didn’t know it was something of a taboo to mention someone’s views on Israeli politics when those views have been made prominently clear and are very much in line with their overall political views and ways of expressing them, which is the thing one is commenting upon… If they’d written in the same way about Berlusconi and his right-wing government, one could have mentioned that as instance of those fake-moderate tactics too. Would it have been inappropriate? Why? I mean, I just don’t get it.

By: howard

howard — Mon, 23 Aug 2004 05:40:11 +0000

Russkie, yawn…. Have you actually bothered to read the times and the wapo? If you had, you wouldn’t make the claim you make, so what else is there to say?

By: Thomas

Thomas — Mon, 23 Aug 2004 03:00:39 +0000

Kieran might not be the best example here. Lest anyone forget, Kieran was the one who credited the Bush-was-AWOL charges despite the fact that they were contradicted by the documentary evidence. But, as we know, that’s a whole different story with entirely different standards of proof.

By: Jim Urquhart

Jim Urquhart — Mon, 23 Aug 2004 00:37:19 +0000

Matt et al, I know what the OxBlog position is on Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Israel, the U.S. domestic and foreign policies, economics, etc. (generally the opposite of mine). I also know that Israel is not the subject at hand and that the reference to Likud is gratuitous at best. It just gets very tiresome when a political point cannot be made without dragging Israel into the discussion. Nevertheless, I’ll accept your explanation in good faith, Matt, and we’ll leave it at that. (I won’t sully this comment with any reference to “Moriveth”.)

By: nick

nick — Sun, 22 Aug 2004 23:34:10 +0000

For Adesnik, denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.

By: praktike

praktike — Sun, 22 Aug 2004 21:59:42 +0000

The OxBloggers are a product of the Yale history and political science departments, and their biases reflect that.

By: russkie

russkie — Sun, 22 Aug 2004 21:43:46 +0000

>russkie, the idea that the times >and the wapo are carrying water >for kerry against the swifties >doesn?t actually withstand >scrutiny of the times and the >wapo. nice try, though. Hmmm…. I thought that this site attracted academic types who had some inkling of what constitutes an intelligent discussion or a logical argument. Disappointing…

By: momo

momo — Sun, 22 Aug 2004 19:54:12 +0000

Jim, what Matt pointed out is clear as daylight to anyone who’s read OxBlog a little. Israeli politics is one of the major topics they’ve written about, and just like about Iraq and US and this Swift Boat Veterans affair, they like to portray their views as moderate and “keeping my mind open” while all along they’ve consistently taken overtly right-wing stances, which makes their claim to be centrist-bipartisan-moderate whatever you like to define it a bit hypocrite. That’s all. Nothing “impertinent” in observing the same attitude applies to their views on Israel. You’d have to be completely unfamiliar with their blog not to get Matt’s point.

By: howard

howard — Sun, 22 Aug 2004 19:48:56 +0000

Roger, good grief: John Kerry has been known for being the decorated soldier who turned against the war since 1971. Yes, i would have known it any year since then, and so would anyone else who pays attention to politics. (As a side note, we’ve also known john o’neill since then as well, and one of the strongest arguments against the swifties in the first place is why o’neill and colson wouldn’t have used the “he didn’t deserve his medals” line back in 1971, when they were first trying to discredit kerry?) Nor is it a reasonable approximation of reality to say that kerry’s campaign is about his war service. His war service is an important indicator (just as bush’s lack of service is an indicator, too): his campaign is about rolling back tax cuts above $200K to fund intelligent expansions of health care coverage; restoring intenrnational alliances to a meaningful role in our foreign policy; stop using stop-loss orders as a backdoor draft and instead increase the size of our military; restore environemtnal protections sytematically gutted during the bush years; alter the tax code to make it cheaper to hire new workers in america; restore respect for science to the executive branch – you know, policy matters like that. russkie, the idea that the times and the wapo are carrying water for kerry against the swifties doesn’t actually withstand scrutiny of the times and the wapo. nice try, though. susie q, i agree completely: the reason i don’t pay attention to the oxbloggers is that they are insufferably smug little people who pretend to gravitas that they don’t possess. Being in England is the worst possible thing for their personalities….