I believe this article is very one-sided in that it does not point out that that many people associated with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have changed their story and are directly contradicted by the official U.S. government documentary evidence. Take the following paragraph:
An investigation by The Washington Post into what happened that day suggests that both sides have withheld information from the public record and provided an incomplete, and sometimes inaccurate, picture of what took place. But although Kerry's accusers have succeeded in raising doubts about his war record, they have failed to come up with sufficient evidence to prove him a liar.Of course, documentary evidence that supports Kerry's version of events *is* sufficient evidence to prove at least some of the Swift Boat Veterans are liars. Mr. O'Neill himself was on George Stephanopoulos' show yesterday saying that Kerry's boat returned to pick up Rassman, from the water, while the other boats remained under fire. This was to paint Kerry as some kind of coward - but of course, Mr. O'Neill can't seem to make up his mind about whether the boats were under fire or not - he continually changes his story.
It's embarrassing that your paper has such a low capacity to point out the obvious - that Swifties are lying through their teeth.
Here's another gross example:
O'Neill has said that the initials "KJW" on the bottom of the report "identified" it as having been written by Kerry. It is unclear why this should be so, as Kerry's initials are JFK. A review of other Swift boat after-action reports at the Naval Historical Center here reveals several that include the initials "KJW" but describe incidents at which Kerry was not present.
It would be nice if the Post did a little critical analysis once in a while on Kerry's critics. How about calling O'Neill's account, here, 'factually challenged', or 'hard to believe', or 'obviously false', or 'the guy must be off his rocker', or 'little green men on his shoulder must have gave him that account', or something, anything sufficiently negative. Instead, we get 'it is unclear why this should be so' - as if the Post is just an innocent bystander, incapable of calling a lie a lie.
Great job guys. Keep up the good work.
UPDATE: I did not send this link to the WaPost, but it's just one of many - and they know about them - but Mr. Republican Editor didn't want anyone to get the real story behind the Swift Liars.
Bob Dole, too? What a piece of shit.
I quote from Altercation quoting Andrew Ferguson at the uber-conservative Weekly Standard:
Yet in 2004, Republicans find themselves supporting a candidate, George W. Bush, with a slender and ambiguous military record against a man whose combat heroism has never (until now) been disputed. Further--and here we'll let slip a thinly disguised secret--Republicans are supporting a candidate that relatively few of them find personally or politically appealing. This is not the choice Republicans are supposed to be faced with. The 1990s were far better. In those days the Democrats did the proper thing, nominating a draft-dodger to run against George H.W. Bush, who was the youngest combat pilot in the Pacific theater in World War II, and then later, in 1996, against Bob Dole, who left a portion of his body on the beach at Anzio.
Republicans have no such luck this time, and so they scramble to reassure themselves that they nevertheless are doing the right thing, voting against a war hero. The simplest way to do this is to convince themselves that the war hero isn't really a war hero. If sufficient doubt about Kerry's record can be raised, we can vote for Bush without remorse. But the calculations are transparently desperate. Reading some of the anti-Kerry attacks over the last several weeks, you might conclude that this is the new conservative position: A veteran who volunteered for combat duty, spent four months under fire in Vietnam, and then exaggerated a bit so he could go home early is the inferior, morally and otherwise, of a man who had his father pull strings so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam in the first place.
Besides, it can be easy to earn a purple heart - not that it always is.
UPDATE: LA Times comes out big for Kerry.