’)In 2004, John McCain sat on his hands, nodded, and smiled as the Vietnam record of John Kerry was smeared by conservative political operatives.
They say payback is a bitch.
The campaign, which has vowed not to take any attacks lying down this time around, said in a statement that a group calling itself “Vietnam Veterans Against McCain” had sent out a negative mailing about Mr. McCain to South Carolina voters.
“Today, a shadowy political organization calling itself ‘Vietnam Veterans Against McCain’ launched a vicious attack on John McCain in an attempt to impugn his character in the closing days of the South Carolina Republican Primary,” Orson Swindle, who was a fellow prisoner of war in Vietnam with Mr. McCain, said in a statement put out by the campaign. “The group claims that John McCain turned his back on his fellow POWs in order to save his own skin.”
As a friend of mine says, that’s what you get.
um… huh? it looks like these shadowy vietnam vet groups aren’t the only ones making shit up – from the SF Chronicle in august 2004:
“the TV spots became a center of controversy Thursday when McCain, in an interview with the Associated Press, harshly criticized the ad.
“It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me,” McCain said, referring to attacks on his military record during the 2000 Republican primary race by supporters of Bush. At the time, Kerry and other senators who served in Vietnam came to McCain’s defense. Kerry and McCain also worked together in the 1990s on resolving the question of American soldiers missing in action in Vietnam, which led to normalized relations between the countries.
“I deplore this kind of politics,” McCain told the Associated Press. “I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam.”
Dude, you have a really bad memory:
In an August 5 interview with the Associated Press, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), “a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called the ad criticizing John Kerry’s military service ‘dishonest and dishonorable’ and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.”
Source? None other than Media Matters.
He urged condemnation. He didn’t condemn, and it was tepid at best.
Oliver, give me a break.
“I deplore this kind of politics. I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam.”
That’s not condemnation?
You accused him of sitting his hands, nodding and smiling about the ads and that clearly is not the case. You were wrong. Admit it.
He sure did Jay, Oliver you are wrong!!!!
McCain condemned the ad in 2004 and because he turned into a giant hypocrite since the 2000 race, he is accepting large chunks of swift boat liars’ donor money. That is where his roosting chickens lie.
Here is McCain basically saying that Kerry deserved to be Swiftboated because he ran on his Vietnam service:
McCain said Kerry may have opened himself to criticism by focusing on Vietnam. In his own primary campaign in 2000, McCain said, he didn’t have to because everyone knew he’d been there. For Kerry, “it’s clearly a tactical or strategic move” to shield him against “charges of being too liberal and soft on defense.”
McCain is now running on his Vietnam service, even more so than Kerry ever did. So I guess he too “opened himself to criticism by focusing on Vietnam”.
Here is McCain basically saying that Kerry deserved to be Swiftboated because he ran on his Vietnam service:
It’s not hard to find the source of that info, and you omitted what followed:
He said it’s appropriate to debate whether Kerry was right to oppose the war when he got home, but not appropriate to accuse someone of lying about a situation in which “bullets are flying and people are dying” because “there are always different versions about what happens in combat.”
So contrary to what you said, McCain did not “basically say Kerry deserved to be Swiftboated.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-25-mccain-_x.htm
“It’s not hard to find the source of that info, and you omitted what followed:”
Yeah… You realize what the Swift Boaters said was provably false. Not, just an example of there being “different versions about what happens in combat.”
Like Oliver said, his response was tepid at best.
Well then he should have said he felt McCain’s criticism was ‘tepid’ (though I’m not sure what else he was supposed to do aside from asking the Swift Boat guys to take it outside) instead of acting as though he agreed with what was going on and said nothing.
Yeah, McCain felt that what the Swift boat liars did was deplorable and despicable even if it was Kerry’s fault and he just couldn’t wait to get his hands on the money that financed it.
“Well then he should have said he felt McCain’s criticism was ‘tepid’ (though I’m not sure what else he was supposed to do aside from asking the Swift Boat guys to take it outside) instead of acting as though he agreed with what was going on and said nothing.”
Call them god damn liars, cause that’s what they were. Tell them point blank and in public that what they were doing was an offense to all who served.
Instead he blamed Kerry and mere said there was a difference of opinion.
He publicly said that the ad was “dishonest and dishonorable.” I am guessing that having a United States Senator going on television and saying, “Those guys are goddamn liars!” is not something people want to see.
Instead he blamed Kerry and mere said there was a difference of opinion.
Oh for the love of Christ. Where did he blame Kerry? He didn’t blame Kerry for the Swift Boat ads. He said “Kerry may have opened himself to criticism.” And it’s clear from the article he was talking about in the context of what Kerry did after he returned from Vietnam.
As for the “difference of opinion” again, read the freaking article:
He said it’s pointless to argue over whether Kerry was right or wrong to say he and his crew crossed into Cambodia on a certain night 35 years ago. The Kerry campaign said that he was probably not in Cambodia on Chistmas Eve, 1968, as Kerry had previously claimed. “So what if he wasn’t over the border or he thought he was over the border?” McCain said. “I don’t know exactly where I was flying over North Vietnam all the time.”
The bottom line (as this is once again descending into pedantic nonsense) is this state:
In 2004, John McCain sat on his hands, nodded, and smiled as the Vietnam record of John Kerry was smeared by conservative political operatives.
is not accurate.
Jay said:
“It’s not hard to find the source of that info”
Yeah, I kind of figured that by now, most of us political nerds who have been posting for years know how to “copy & paste” and use the Google so I didn’t waste any of my time posting the link.
Also, maybe my phrasing was off, but McCain did suggest that Kerry brought the attacks on himself through something he had done and now McCain has done that same something.
Karma is a bitch.
Also, maybe my phrasing was off, but McCain did suggest that Kerry brought the attacks on himself through something he had done
Well, I didn’t read it that way. I read it as McCain saying that Kerry brought some criticism on himself (and he certainly was not immune to valid criticism) because Kerry so highly touted his military service.
Jesus Christ, Jay, can you at least try?
Jay: “He publicly said that the ad was “dishonest and dishonorable.” I am guessing that having a United States Senator going on television and saying, ‘Those guys are goddamn liars!’ is not something people want to see.”
It wouldn’t be the first time he used that language.
Jay: “He said ‘Kerry may have opened himself to criticism.’”
And that is blaming Kerry.
Jay (quoting the article: “He said it’s pointless to argue over whether Kerry was right or wrong…” And then went on to repeat the attacks. That is worse than saying there was just a difference of opinions. He helped spread the smears while pretending to be above them.
Jay: “The bottom line (as this is once again descending into pedantic nonsense)…”
I don’t think it’s a trivial difference between what you said and the reality of what happened.
Jay: “…is not accurate.”
It’s more accurate than anything you’ve said.
McCain did nothing to stop the attacks
It wouldn’t be the first time he used that language.
Using the language and using it in public are two different things.
And that is blaming Kerry.
Not for the Swift Boat ads.
And then went on to repeat the attacks. That is worse than saying there was just a difference of opinions. He helped spread the smears while pretending to be above them.
Repeat what attacks? He mentioned the “Christmas in Cambodia” story which KERRY HIMSELF said wasn’t accurate. How can something be a ’smear’ when the supposed person being smeared admits the story wasn’t true? McCain was essentially defending Kerry by saying it was no big deal.
t’s more accurate than anything you’ve said.
I’ve only posted what McCain said. You’re the one choosing to distort context.
McCain did nothing to stop the attacks
McCain wasn’t in a position to “stop the attacks.” The question is whether or not McCain “sat on his hands, nodded, and smiled” at the Swift Boat ads which he clearly did not do. Again, McCain’s words:
“I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crewmates have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam.”
Asked if the White House was behind the ad, McCain said:
“I hope not, but I don’t know. But I think the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad.”
Yeah. That’s really “sitting on his hands, nodding and smiling.”
Jay said: I am guessing that having a United States Senator going on television and saying, “Those guys are goddamn liars!” is not something people want to see.
Actually, that is exactly what I’d like to see. It would be a vast improvement over the delicate, parsed, market-tested-to-be-unoffensive let’s-make-sure-we-don’t-say-anything-that-someone-might-object-to pablum they usually spew.
Hell, if Romney (for example) made such a clear, unequivocal honest comment just once, I’d seriously consider changing my whole opinion of him.
Sean, you say that and others do as well. However, I remember all the caterwauling from Democrats about Dick Cheney when he told Patrick Leahy to go “fuck himself” and the Bush campaign reacted in “shock” when it was revealed that Kerry used similar ‘colorful metaphors’ to describe the situation in Iraq.
We say we’d like it, but when it happens people are like, “Oh my goodness!” and behave like Quakers.
Jay said: However, I remember all the caterwauling from Democrats about Dick Cheney when he told Patrick Leahy to go “fuck himself” and the Bush campaign reacted in “shock” when it was revealed that Kerry used similar ‘colorful metaphors’ to describe the situation in Iraq.
Let’s see, Jay. Leahy made critical comments to Cheney about profiteering by Halliburton and Bush’s judicial nominees and Cheney snidely replied “Go fuck yourself.” A group publicizes blatant lies in a smear campaign and a Senator stands up and says “These guys are goddamn liars.”
Are you really equating the two? Can you really not see the difference between an insult made in place of debate, and a person standing up and calling a liar a liar?
However, I remember all the caterwauling from Democrats about Dick Cheney when he told Patrick Leahy to go “fuck himself” and the Bush campaign reacted in “shock” when it was revealed that Kerry used similar ‘colorful metaphors’ to describe the situation in Iraq.
For the record, I’m with Jay on the larger topic, and I feel like there’s a lot of semantical acrobatics going on here to paint McCain in a worse light on his reaction to the Swift Boat Liars.
But the above statement is a weak support. There is a profound difference between calling out the Swifties as “goddamn liars” and telling a Senator, in the halls of the Senate, to “go fuck himself.” There is also a profound difference between either of the above and using curses to describe war.
The first and third should be acceptable. The second was wildly inappropriate, and said a lot more about Cheney than it did about Leahy.
Jay said: Sean, you say that and others do as well. However, … We say we’d like it, but when it happens people are like, “Oh my goodness!” and behave like Quakers.
Jay, I was only speaking for myself. “Actually, that is exactly what I’d like to see.” And it is what I’d like to see. I wasn’t speaking of what the more general “people are like”. Minor point, but you did had to switch the target there to make a criticism.
As for what people are like, those who are shocked (shocked!) to find gambling going on, uh, I mean, to hear politicians using such language aren’t really. They use it in place of their real objection, which they don’t want to voice. “I don’t like so-and-so because he’s a different religion, but I know that won’t go over well so I’ll say I don’t like him because he once swore.”
“Are you really equating the two? ”
Yes he is. But only because it helps his argument de jour.
Somehow neither swift boating of Kerry or the false attacks on McCain are right. If democrats allow this it will only continue against them. It’s time to put an end to personal destruction of candidates whether one agrees with them or not, Oliver. Whether or not you feel McCain “sat on his hands” this should not be allowed to continue. It’s also time for all the Karl Rove’s on either side to get the hell out the election business!!!!!!!
Gotta love how those right-wing-flag-waving Republican hypocrites can make denigrating someone’s war time military service into a campaign strategy.
Oh lordy here we go. Now I have to spend 18,000 comments attempting to explain I wasn’t equating anything, but rather giving examples of the reaction by people to politicians cursing.
Ok, want a better example? During the 2000 campaign mics picked up Bush saying privately (at least Bush thought so) to Cheney “There’s Adam Clymer – major league asshole – from the NY Times.” Nobody heard him save for reporters whose radio or network TV sound equipment was plugged into the microphone. But when it got out that’s what he said, the finger waggers were ready.
Getting back to the MAIN POINT:
A. Oliver accused John McCain “sat on his hands, nodded, and smiled” at the Swift Boat ads. That’s NOT TRUE.
B. John McCain said the ad was “dishonest and dishonorable.” That’s the equivalent of the truck driver version which goes, “Those guys are goddamn liars!”
Seriously Oliver. Why do you seem to be so unwilling to own up to it on the occasions when your rhetoric is so obviously over the top? I’m certain that you don’t care about my opinion one way or the other, but if you could just own up about your excesses, it would go a long way towards “I read Oliver’s site because his take on things is a reasonable view on what mainstream Democrats are thinking about” as opposed to the current “I read Oliver’s site because he occasionally makes me laugh out loud at how willing he is to twist things in order to try to make his political opponents look bad.”
How hard is it to say, “Yeah, I didn’t know about that quote, I guess “John McCain sat on his hands, nodded” isn’t quite an accurate picture of things.”
And I don’t even like John McCain..!
Jay said: Oh lordy here we go. Now I have to spend 18,000 comments attempting to explain I wasn’t equating anything, but rather giving examples of the reaction by people to politicians cursing.
Well, maybe if you said what you meant clearly the first time. When I say I’d like it if a Senator said “goddamn liars” and you respond that people didn’t like it when Cheney swore a Leahy that you are comparing the two. And fair for people to point out that they aren’t really comparable so any reaction to one isn’t a good example of the reaction that would come from the other.
Now, I do agree with you that Oliver overstated it by saying McCain sat on his hands when clearly it has been shown that he did make comments against the Swift Boaters. (And find Oliver’s subsequent “tepid at best” a rather Clintonian qualification.) But McCain’s comments certainly could have been stronger and were far too carefully chosen for someone who bills himself as a straight-talker.
Gotta love how those right-wing-flag-waving Republican hypocrites can make denigrating someone’s war time military service into a campaign strategy.
Jay: “B. John McCain said the ad was ‘dishonest and dishonorable.’”
He then blamed John Kerry and even repeated the smears. Hardly a rebuke of the Swiftboaters.
and even repeated the smears
Which one? Specifically.
Well?
“Which one? Specifically.”
That he lied about what happened in combat. He implied Kerry had his facts wrong, but you couldn’t blame him because combat is chaotic. He was repeating the smear in a way to stay above the fray.
By the way, weren’t you the one who got pissy when I wondered where you had gone from a previous debate? Now you gave me less than 24 hours before making the same complaint.
Why the change of heart?
That he lied about what happened in combat. He implied Kerry had his facts wrong,
I said SPECIFICALLY. McCain implied Kerry has his facts wrong ABOUT WHAT?
Quote word for word what McCain said that you claim was a repeat of the smears. Not generalities. Specifics.
“bullets are flying and people are dying” because “there are always different versions about what happens in combat.”