« Previous | Next »

Why I Don’t Read LGF
Posted by tgirsch

As if I needed another reason, the dumbass who owns that site asks:

Has anyone ever really shown that the allegations made by the Swift Boat Veterans against John F. Kerry were false?

Gee, Chuckie, I dunno. Has anyone ever really shown that the allegations were true? (Answer: An emphatic ‘no.’) I know you love you some good ole fashioned McCarthyism, but these days we tend to prefer a system where people are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

But now that he asks the question, I am forced to wonder: Has anyone ever really shown that Charles F. Johnson isn’t a child molester? I mean, the question deserves an answer…

H/T: Dan Collins at Protein Wisdom, a right-leaninging blogger who, to his credit, rightfully calls CFJ a “douchebag.”

UPDATE: I should have known better than to give credit where it isn’t due. As pointed out in comments, Collins is calling McCain a douchebag for distancing himself from the SBVT asshats; he’s wasn’t calling CFJ a douchebag for his “guilty until proven innocent beyond any possible doubt” routine. My mistake.

What was it, by the way, that McCain said, that makes him a “douchebag?” Only this:

“We’re aware of many of the things that 527s have done … where unlimited amounts of money can pour into negative campaigns such as we saw against John Kerry and his combat record, as we saw against (former Georgia Sen.) Max Cleland … they’re really very not accountable to anyone. At least I have to say ‘I’m John McCain and I approve this message.’”

Wow. That horrible egregious bastard. The nerve of that guy.

February 28th, 2008 Politics, Bloggin | 9 comments

9 Comments »

  1. RDub writes:

    Pretty sure you’re misreading Dan’s comment: I believe it was directed at McCain for his shot at the Swift Boat Vets.

    As far as their allegations having been disproven: if you mean the allegations about Kerry’s Purple Hearts then, no they haven’t been disproven or proven true (that was pretty thin gruel to begin with and it didn’t affect my opinion of Kerry much either way). The bigger issue was how he sand-bagged his former comrades in arms once he got out and what that said about his character. History is not likely to be with Kerry on that count.

    But hey, McCarthyism!

    Comment 2/28/2008

  2. tgirsch writes:

    I see, from reading the comments over at Collins’ site, that you are correct. Silly me, prematurely giving credit to a right-wing ideologue.

    Frankly, the SBVT guys are worthy of derision, if only because in their attempt to smear Kerry, they pretty much called the validity of all purple hearts and silver stars into question.

    Comment 2/28/2008

  3. RDub writes:

    I agree that calling the Purple Hearts into question was foolish and arguably uncalled for. Your opinion on the SBVFT is your opinion. And Kerry’s character is Kerry’s character.

    Comment 2/28/2008

  4. tgirsch writes:

    RDub:

    My opinion on SBVT is largely supported by the facts. They were a purely partisan attack machine, without question. And according to one of their members:

    Mr. Kerry’s defenders have received help from unlikely sources, including some who were originally aligned with the Swift boat group but later objected to its accusations against Mr. Kerry. One of them, Steve Hayes, was an early member of the group. A former sailor, he was a longtime friend and employee of William Franke, one of the group’s founders, and he supported the push to have Mr. Kerry release his military files. But Mr. Hayes came to believe that the group was twisting Mr. Kerry’s record.

    “The mantra was just ‘We want to set the record straight,’ ” Mr. Hayes said this month. “It became clear to me that it was morphing from an organization to set the record straight into a highly political vendetta. They knew it was not the truth.”

    If you want to criticize what Mr. Kerry did after Viet Nam, that’s fine, but there’s simply been no credible evidence that any of the SBVT allegations were true, and plenty of credible evidence to the contrary.

    Comment 2/28/2008

  5. Morris writes:

    “I agree that calling the Purple Hearts into question was foolish and arguably uncalled for.”

    When someone gets a Purple Heart for such minor “injuries” it diminishes the deeds of those who have legitimately earned them.

    Comment 3/1/2008

  6. Matt writes:

    Aren’t you doing the same thing with the swift boat people, deeming them guilty until proven innocent?

    Comment 3/4/2008

  7. tgirsch writes:

    Matt:

    How do you figure? (And, to be clear, who do you mean by “them?”)

    Comment 3/4/2008

  8. Matt writes:

    Them is the swift boat people.

    You are saying that LGF has declared Kerry guilty until proven innocent. But at the same time you are declaring the swift boat people guilty (of slander or libel) until proven innocent.

    Or am I misinterpreting something?

    Comment 3/5/2008

  9. tgirsch writes:

    While the SBVT people haven’t been found guilty in a court of law, there’s plenty of evidence (some of it linked in above in comment #4) that they were, including at least one of their own former members coming out and saying so. At an absolute minimum, SBVT is beyond a doubt guilty of making allegations against Kerry for which there is simply no compelling evidence; further, they never really even tried to provide any such evidence. They’ve barely updated their web site in the last four years. I think it’s pretty clear to any reasonable observer that they were a smear organization whose sole purpose was to undermine his presidential bid (something they did quite effectively, I’d add). SourceWatch lists SBVT as a partisan front group.

    Eric Rasmussen has taken the trouble to write a fairly detailed analysis of the SBVT allegations, with lots of references, and it doesn’t look good for the SBVT types.

    Above in short form: There’s a crapload more evidence that the SBVT organization was a partisan smear machine than there is for even one of their anti-Kerry allegations.

    Comment 3/5/2008

Leave a comment