Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John O'Neil: Swift Boats Vets for Truth Speaks

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    John O'Neil: Swift Boats Vets for Truth Speaks

    John O'Neill gives an interesting interview of the Swift Boats Vets for Truth and their problems in reaching the mainstream media with their allegations against Kerry.

    A great read on how a group of angry vets sent Kerry packing back to the ketchup ranch in November 2004. Kudos!

    http://www.taemag.com/issues/article...cle_detail.asp


    Read it all. Great discussion on supression and bias in the mainstream media and how non-traditional media sources came through.
    Last edited by katana; 3/16/2005 12:42pm, .

    #2
    This is now the group behind the AARP=Homosexual Marriage ads (since pulled).

    Yeah I give a crap about their problems in reaching the mainstream media.

    Comment


      #3
      Is this the guy who drew a paycheck from the Nixon whitehouse to 'slime' Kerry and neutralize his status as an anti-war leader?

      'Cuz that happened.
      "You know what I like about you, William? You like guns AND meditation."

      Comment


        #4
        The mainstream media owned by those liberal buffons Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner and Disney...

        Comment


          #5
          I know that I had trouble reading or watching anything about their story, brave souls.

          In fact Lexis-Nexis shows that there were only an average of 1,000 mentions PER MONTH of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, in tv news trascripts alone. More for print media. And yet, these brave, grassroots organizers pressed.

          Originally posted by Lexis-Nexis
          This search has been interrupted because it will return more than 1,000 documents.
          Excuse me. I'm beginning to tear up.

          Other groups founded on the inspiration of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth:

          Bartenders Against Cirrhosis
          Infants for Diaper Rash
          Jews for Jesus
          Perverts United Against Porn
          Tai Chi Masters For the Iraqi War
          Teenaged Boys for Blue Balls and Against Nudity on HBO

          Yes, it's quite a country.
          I dork harder than any of you can imagine.

          - Hedgehoney

          Comment


            #6
            The question wasn't whether they eventually got coverage. The question was whether the coverage from the mainstream press happened only after a groundswell from non-traditional sources caused it to no longer be ignored.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Dochter
              The mainstream media owned by those liberal buffons Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner and Disney...
              Again there is a difference between stock holders and people who are running the show. If the people running the show are making money for the stockholders they will probably be left alone.

              Comment


                #8
                The question really is why do you care whether this group of clearly disingenous tards get coverage?

                Their comments re:Kerry were in contradiction of those on his boat.
                Their subsequent comments re:AARP have since demonstrated they're complete morons.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Dochter
                  The question really is why do you care whether this group of clearly disingenous tards get coverage?

                  Their comments re:Kerry were in contradiction of those on his boat.
                  I'm not a vet so I can't comment on some points except as an outside observer. As an outside observer Kerry looks like a complete putz. Witness (if my memory serves):

                  1) Signs up for combat duty. Doesn't see enough action on the ship so he asks for swift boat duty.
                  2) Serves on a swift boat and takes a camera with him so he can film his heroics for later use.
                  3) Gets three purple hearts under somewhat mysterious and arguably non-life threatening circumstances. Then uses loophole to get out early of duty he VOLUNTEERED to undertake leaving his beloved comrades hanging in the breeze.
                  4) Gets back home and accuses his beloved comrades of being baby killers, rapists, etc. and shuns his military service.

                  Flash forward 30 years...

                  5) Now wraps himself in military greatness and expects his former soldiers to like him despite being an ass 30 years ago. Plays up his limited service (3 months was it?) in Vietnam.

                  6) Doesn't understand why people think he's a phony.

                  Pardon me for thinking the guy is a douche.

                  Their subsequent comments re:AARP have since demonstrated they're complete morons.
                  Haven't seen the ads (I don't watch much TV). Doesn't mean what they said earlier though wasn't true.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by afronaut
                    Jews for Jesus
                    Don't joke... these guys actually exist.
                    Taking responsibility for my actions since 1989

                    Comment


                      #11
                      liberal blogs actually have a harder time reaching mainstram media ... at least according to the NY Times ... =)

                      Liberal Bloggers Reaching Out to Major Media
                      By JONATHAN D. GLATER

                      Even as online pundits criticize traditional news organizations as slow, biased and technologically challenged, a group of bloggers is trying to use old-fashioned telephone conference calls to share their ideas with newspaper and television journalists.

                      The bloggers, who describe themselves as liberal or progressive, say the conference calls are intended to counter what they regard as the much stronger influence of conservative pundits online. Bob Fertik, president of Democrats.com, the host of the two calls so far, views them as a step toward getting their reports out to mainstream news organizations.

                      While there is no way to know precisely who dialed in, reporters from news organizations including CBS, The Washington Post, Newsweek, MSNBC and The National Journal asked for a call-in number, according to one participant.

                      "We hope to build a bridge," Mr. Fertik said, adding that different bloggers would be invited to share their reporting on each call. "We hope that good credible stories that are broken on the Internet find their way into coverage in the mainstream media."

                      The conference call is a small development in the complex relationship between bloggers and the mainstream media. Traditional journalists largely ignored bloggers when they emerged, but have begun to take note of their influence as online commentators assumed roles in news stories like the flaws in the report by "60 Minutes Wednesday" on President Bush's National Guard service and the comments by the former CNN chief, Eason Jordan, about the military's treatment of journalists in Iraq.

                      As more news emerges online, or what is reported offline becomes fodder for further investigation, the lines between those operating in the world of online news and commentary and those at the traditional media organizations have become more blurred and sometimes less confrontational. Some news organizations now credit blogs that originate stories, extending to them the treatment other media receive. Some bloggers, in turn, argue that they should receive all the legal privileges that traditional journalists often have, including the right to protect news sources.

                      Mr. Fertik maintains that the blurring of boundaries has benefited left-wing bloggers less than their adversaries on the right, saying that reports posted on conservative blogs more easily make the jump to the main news media. "The way we perceive it," he said, "is that right-wing bloggers are able to invent stories, get them out on Drudge, get them on Rush Limbaugh, get them on Fox, and pretty soon that spills over into the mainstream media. We, the progressives, we don't have that kind of network to work with."

                      Some on the right disagree, arguing that the news reported by traditional media is tainted by liberal bias. "We learned years ago that the mainstream media just weren't going to pay attention to us," said Kristinn Taylor of the Web site FreeRepublic.com.

                      But bloggers on all sides agree that the left has made less effective use of the opportunities to organize and wield influence afforded by the Internet. The reasons, though, are more complex than they might appear. "It's not just a story about the blogosphere," said Jack M. Balkin, a professor and director of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School. "It's a story about the conservative social networks of which the blogosphere is a part. The important thing is the network - and I mean the social network."

                      It is probably too early to tell how successful the conference calls have been, although Mr. Fertik said that the audio recording of the first call had been downloaded some 2,000 times. During the second call, held last Tuesday, Brad Friedman, who runs bradblog.com, discussed his investigation into accusations of rigged electronic voting machines - a contentious subject that drew questions from listeners, mostly other bloggers.

                      Some phoned from far away, including places in Canada, to take part in the call, which lasted more than an hour. Listeners asked if a figure in Mr. Friedman's inquiry had taken a lie-detector test and if any traditional news outlets had picked up the story.

                      Will Femia, a producer at MSNBC.com who monitors blogging, said he was surprised by how well that call worked. "It was a fascinating idea," he said, "and I would also say that it's not a bad idea to try something like that. I know that the news producers that I've spoken with are still engaged in a learning curve on how to extract news from blogs."

                      Mr. Femia, who sometimes presents ideas based on bloggers' postings, said he was not sure exactly how stories made the transition. "I don't know what the tipping point is," he said, adding that some reporters clearly checked blogs for ideas.

                      Another conservative Web site, younger than FreeRepublic.com, may offer the best lesson on how to gain influence, a lesson that would resonate with any aspiring journalist: tell a compelling, highly topical story.

                      Powerlineblog.com was one of the first blogs to spread criticism of the documents used as evidence in the "60 Minutes Wednesday" segment, said Paul Mirengoff, a Washington lawyer and a member of the site. "We put the question on our blog and then our readers started weighing in," he said, adding that because the topic was so sensational, it was inevitable that it would make it into the mainstream media.

                      "That really spiked our readership," Mr. Mirengoff said, and established the site as a force to be reckoned with.

                      But he disputed the idea that conservative bloggers had greater success in getting their stories spread by mainstream reporters. "The left just thinks we're getting a free ride and the mainstream media are just eating out of our hand," he said. "That's just not the case."

                      He added that he would be curious to see what happened with the conference call effort. "It never would've occurred to me," he said. "It seems a reasonable thing to do and if it works, we might copy it."

                      Mr. Balkin said that building the influence of a particular Web site requires more than simply expressing conservative views online or taking on a broadcast journalist like Dan Rather. What matters is the willingness of like-minded people to establish links to that Web site, to drive more traffic there, and of yet other like-minded people in traditional news organizations, in talk radio and on television to draw on it.

                      "It's a team effort," Mr. Taylor of FreeRepublic.com said. "We feed off each other, because the radio hosts would have information that we didn't have and then we would post that." In the early days of FreeRepublic, meetings with politicians and other offline efforts helped get word of the site out, too.

                      Right-leaning bloggers were unified by the presence of President Bill Clinton in the 1990's, Mr. Balkin said. That fueled their sense of commitment, he said, adding that while the war in Iraq might have a similar effect on the left now, that would take time.

                      Asked what lessons liberal and progressive bloggers could learn from the experience of FreeRepublic, Mr. Taylor replied that while "I'm loath to give them advice," they might have to outgrow the conspiracy-theory stage of blogging to produce reports that are credible and relevant to a wider audience.

                      "In the old days of FreeRepublic," he said, "we had all kinds of black helicopters" and speculation about the effect of the Y2K problem. After the world did not end on Jan. 1, 2000, he said, "We tried to be more realistic."
                      totoro-san ... world sushi munching champion ...

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Alright. That's it.

                        Originally posted by katana
                        1) Signs up for combat duty. Doesn't see enough action on the ship so he asks for swift boat duty.
                        Would you have preferred he left the dangerous duties for Republicans who would later want to seek office? It is awfully greedy of him.
                        2) Serves on a swift boat and takes a camera with him so he can film his heroics for later use.
                        Don't bring that ignorant shit in here. You're better than that, seriously. Be a conservative. Don't be a fucking Republican.

                        Do you really think that a senator and presidential candidate enlisted and signed up for hideously dangerous duty, performed it admirably -- but decided to bring a camera to film heroics better that 1) he wouldn't get killed and 2) he'd have a chance to start filming and check the light when the shooting started?

                        Is that really what you think? It sounds a lot like what Sean Hannity thinks and I respect you too much to think you have your tongue in his particular asshole.

                        3) Gets three purple hearts under somewhat mysterious
                        What's so fucking mysterous? He was wounded in combat against the enemy and the Navy agreed with him.

                        and arguably non-life threatening circumstances.
                        Which rules would you like him to use for getting medals? The Rules For People Who I Don't Agree With rules? It doesn't matter if they were life-threatening or not. DOD rules state what qualifies and those were written before he was born.

                        Then uses loophole to get out early of duty
                        Have you ever noticed how people who bitch about rules that go against them as being "loopholes?" Can I offer you some cheese with that whine?

                        to undertake leaving his beloved comrades hanging in the breeze.
                        Well, there were one or two other sailors in the Navy at that time and I think they may have gotten someone to, you know, fill in for him. How many times do you need to be shot to earn a trip to the rear? 5? 10?

                        4) Gets back home and accuses his beloved comrades of being baby killers, rapists, etc. and shuns his military service.
                        Some soldiers did do that, although a very very small number, obviously. Don't you think it shows a committment to your country to talk about painful and unpopular things so that it can be better than it is now?

                        Further, if you read his Congressional testimony, his beef was with commanders who gave bad, unworkable, cruel and pointless orders to troops in the field.

                        Flash forward 30 years...

                        5) Now wraps himself in military greatness
                        Three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star gives him the right.

                        and expects his former soldiers to like him despite being an ass 30 years ago.
                        Yeah, there is nothing so obnoxious as a principled, intelligent, patriotic war hero.

                        Plays up his limited service (3 months was it?) in Vietnam
                        Or a year and a half. It's sounds a lot like three months, though.

                        6) Doesn't understand why people think he's a phony.
                        I think he knows why. Mostly people like you and whoever pimped this damnable lie to you.

                        Pardon me for thinking the guy is a douche.
                        No.

                        Haven't seen the ads (I don't watch much TV).
                        Congrats. Mentioning that you don't watch TV doesn't make you seem smart. Feel free to stop if you've been doing so in private life.
                        Doesn't mean what they said earlier though wasn't true.
                        But it's not true. Never was.

                        There is nothing so vomit-inducing as the Honor The Troops Whose Politics I Agree With mentality. This shit is really beneath you, dude.
                        I dork harder than any of you can imagine.

                        - Hedgehoney

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by katana
                          I'm not a vet so I can't comment on some points except as an outside observer. As an outside observer Kerry looks like a complete putz. Witness (if my memory serves):

                          1) Signs up for combat duty. Doesn't see enough action on the ship so he asks for swift boat duty.
                          2) Serves on a swift boat and takes a camera with him so he can film his heroics for later use.
                          3) Gets three purple hearts under somewhat mysterious and arguably non-life threatening circumstances. Then uses loophole to get out early of duty he VOLUNTEERED to undertake leaving his beloved comrades hanging in the breeze.
                          4) Gets back home and accuses his beloved comrades of being baby killers, rapists, etc. and shuns his military service.

                          Flash forward 30 years...

                          5) Now wraps himself in military greatness and expects his former soldiers to like him despite being an ass 30 years ago. Plays up his limited service (3 months was it?) in Vietnam.

                          6) Doesn't understand why people think he's a phony.

                          Pardon me for thinking the guy is a douche.



                          Haven't seen the ads (I don't watch much TV). Doesn't mean what they said earlier though wasn't true.
                          I think he's a douche too, but your history is Fox-worthy.

                          The guy who started the Swift BSers got started as payee of the Nixon admin. He was paid to publicly discredit Kerry before he could become a leader of anti-war Vets. There was a major agenda at play here.

                          You are simply not aware of the degree to which your perceptions, and thus emotions, are conciously engineered.

                          Not a kerry fan myself (had multiple arguements with a Dem friend who really thought he was the great white hype). But here are a few facts not mentioned by the SBVFT
                          - to a man, the men under Kerry's command, on his boat, cite him as an excellent leader who was brave and cool-headed under fire.
                          - He definitely volunteered for combat duty

                          Compare with:
                          - GWB's guard paperwork SPECIFICALLY asks to not be sent into combat.
                          - practically noone can be found to vouch for his performance or attendance.
                          - he lost his pilot's status, possibly due to non-attendance.

                          One was for the war, but refused to fight. The other wanted to see combat, but eventually came to disagree with the justifiactions for the war and how it was being run.
                          "You know what I like about you, William? You like guns AND meditation."

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by afronaut
                            Would you have preferred he left the dangerous duties for Republicans who would later want to seek office? It is awfully greedy of him.
                            Wasn't LBJ a Democrat? Who's war was it?

                            Do you really think that a senator and presidential candidate enlisted and signed up for hideously dangerous duty, performed it admirably -- but decided to bring a camera to film heroics better that 1) he wouldn't get killed and 2) he'd have a chance to start filming and check the light when the shooting started?
                            Why did he have a movie camera with him and shoot that silly footage of him walking through the jungle reeds like a foot soldier? Why did he insist on returning later to the scene of previous fire fights, potentially putting himself and his crewmates in danger again, to do so. He had eyes on politics when he got out and wanted the film for later use to this end. Is this far fetched? It is if you don't think like someone who wants desperately to be a politician when you grow up. However I know and have interacted extensively with people who want nothing more than to be politicians. This type of thinking is well within reason for them.

                            Which rules would you like him to use for getting medals? The Rules For People Who I Don't Agree With rules? It doesn't matter if they were life-threatening or not. DOD rules state what qualifies and those were written before he was born.
                            His antics always reminded me of the MASH episode where Major Burns hurts himself and then applies for a purple heart.

                            Have you ever noticed how people who bitch about rules that go against them as being "loopholes?" Can I offer you some cheese with that whine?
                            My problem isn't that he used the regulations to get out. Hell if I was drafted involuntarily and didn't want to be there I'd probably do the same. HOWEVER, for someone who volunteered for the duty and even had a low-risk ship deployed station and then ASKED for more combat I think this is inexcusable. He should have finished his commitment. If he discovered after he got the assignment that he didn't have the guts to stick it out and wanted to leave that's fine. But DON'T come back and bitch about it in front of congress and certainly DON'T wrap yourself up in your self-fellatio I'm a hero schtick 30 years after the fact.

                            Some soldiers did do that, although a very very small number, obviously. Don't you think it shows a committment to your country to talk about painful and unpopular things so that it can be better than it is now?
                            If you read my previous posts on this topic you'll see that I have zero beef with him joining the protest movement. Zero. What I do have a problem with is his protest involvement and then sudden come to Jesus I'm a Hero Vote For Me turn around. If he was consistent and simply said "I opposed the war and believed I was doing the right thing." I could accept that, but he had to take both sides of the fence like a moron. Whoever gave him this advice for his campaign is a fool.

                            Or a year and a half. It's sounds a lot like three months, though.
                            Most of the time spent in training, a few months in theater on a ship, and the rest on the Swift boat.

                            I think he knows why. Mostly people like you and whoever pimped this damnable lie to you.
                            No. Kerry thinks he's better than everyone and should be seen as the way he wants to be seen. The vets called him out and he couldn't defend against it. He would have been better holding onto his anti-war past and not riding both sides.

                            There is nothing so vomit-inducing as the Honor The Troops Whose Politics I Agree With mentality. This shit is really beneath you, dude.
                            I looked at both sides of the case. The vets had a better credibility. Just admit that Kerry screwed up by overplaying the whole Hero bit and was slammed for it. I talked to Vietnam vets I know about this and they didn't buy his story either of being a Hero and Anti-war leader all wrapped up in one nice package. Face it that he screwed up positioning himself and lost on the issue. It was one of his biggest blunders of his entire campaign.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Zendetta
                              The guy who started the Swift BSers got started as payee of the Nixon admin. He was paid to publicly discredit Kerry before he could become a leader of anti-war Vets. There was a major agenda at play here.
                              So what? He debated Kerry publicly 30 years ago. He then faded into obscurity only to return again 30 years later to shoot him down again. Did Nixon foot the bill this time from the grave? Even if he was being paid to discredit Kerry 30 years ago does that invalidate the substance of his debate? No.

                              You are simply not aware of the degree to which your perceptions, and thus emotions, are conciously engineered.
                              Goes both ways.

                              One was for the war, but refused to fight. The other wanted to see combat, but eventually came to disagree with the justifiactions for the war and how it was being run.
                              Again I have no problem with him protesting the war. I have a problem with him protesting the war and then coming back later to play up the Hero bit.

                              Comment

                              Collapse

                              Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                              Working...
                              X