GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Petraeus & The Swift Boat Vets

by

[GP Ed. Note – This is a guest posting from GP Reader “I Love Capitalism “]

**************

Following MoveOn.org’s contemptible attack on the patriotism of General Petraeus, one of the sillier comments to be heard from some of the ad’s defenders is along the lines, ‘How is this any different from the Swift Boat Vet attacks on Kerry in the 2004 election?’ For example, Senator Dick Durbin tried it on the Senate floor.

The Swift Vets and POWs for Truth apparently got under the skin of the Left in 2004. All manner of falsehoods and conspiracies are now attributed to their perceived members. For example, just recently, more than one Kos diarist wanted to tie them to an alleged plot to ‘steal’ California’s electoral votes. (Yeah. Weird.)

That the Swift Vets allegedly “lied” and “stole” the 2004 election has become an article of faith, not to be disputed, among the MSM-Left-Nutroots in their soundproof echo chamber. Even MSM editorials willing to criticize the attack on Petraeus will breezily cite the SVPfT as examples of “libel”. Let’s note here that Kerry’s supporters tried to muzzle the SVPfT ads at the time on grounds of allegedly being libelous, and wanted Kerry to sue the Swift Vets for libel, but Kerry avoided a courtroom showdown and now he will never sue them. (Scared much, John?)

In any case, MoveOn.org’s attacks on Petraeus are, in fact, different from SVPfT’s on Kerry. Here’s why.

Who they are: The Swift Vets and POWs were a case of decorated, honorable veterans – including Bud Day from the POW side, the most-decorated U.S. veteran still living – in a dispute with a fellow veteran running for office, John F. Kerry. MoveOn.org, by contrast, is a bunch of civilian politicos attacking, not a long-ago veteran running for political office, but a currently-serving general.

Who they’re affecting: The Swift Vets were in dispute with Kerry over matters past. By contrast, to the extent MoveOn.org’s attack on Petraeus will have any meaning or impact, it must and will be to undermine the morale of U.S. troops in the field today.

Who started it: Kerry started the dispute with his Swift Vet comrades and commanders when he publicly – and falsely – smeared them as war criminals. Needless to say, Petraeus had done nothing of the kind to anyone at MoveOn.org.

How they know: The Swift Vets served with Kerry (or commanded him), and knew him personally. They objected to Kerry’s fitness as a potential Commander-in-Chief because of incidents that occurred in their own direct, personal experience of him.Click here to see who some of the Swift Vets were and are.

MoveOn.org speaks with no comparable authority, as regards Petraeus’ character or actions in “betraying” anyone.

What they’re after: Contrary to left-liberal myth, the Swift Vets represented a broad spectrum of American political opinion, including “Democrats, Republicans and Independents” (and also the occasional Green, and the occasional Constitutionalist). As a young man, their leader John O’Neill pointedly told President Nixon he was a Democrat. Later, O’Neill contributed to some Republican candidates, but also voted for Al Gore in 2000. Their motive truly was that they believed that Kerry – given his record of slandering the United States, its military, and them – would make the worst possible Commander-in-Chief.

By contrast, MoveOn.org represents only the far Left, and even pretends to own the Democratic Party.

The state of their evidence: The Swift Vets had prime evidence against Kerry, including not only their own first-hand experiences, but also Kerry’s own words in slandering the United States, and them. Some of their most important ads did nothing but present Kerry’s own words and actions.

How can the same be said of MoveOn’s shameful, sleazy allegations about Petraeus? MoveOn.org cites as its “evidence”, things like the fact that Petraeus had thought we were making progress in Iraq back in December 2004 – which indeed we were at the time, before the Golden Mosque bombing of early 2006. Kerry, in sharp contrast to Petraeus, really did betray America by meeting with its enemies to directly give them political aid and comfort.

I could go on, but let’s sum up.
– Attacked a general currently serving us well in the field: MoveOn.org
– Only attacked a politician running for office: Swift Vets
– Had served with their target, and knew his poor character from personal experience: Swift Vets
– Attacked only in response to their target’s earlier scurrilous attacks on them: Swift Vets
– Represented a political-cross section, attacking essentially from a non-partisan and personal kind of concern: Swift Vets
– Had incontrovertible evidence against their target, including his own words in his explicitly condemning and turning on America: Swift Vets

Advantage: Swift Vets.

Comments

  1. Good post. Problem is that fact matters not (when it comes to liberals).

    I see that Andrew Sullivan is upset with Rudy’s ad criticizing Hillary’s assertion that Patraeus is a liar (not her words but her meaning).

    Sully says: We know from the 2004 campaign (the Swift Boat obscenities above all) that the partisan right will stop at nothing to declare Democrats traitors and hostile to American soldiers. Rudy will love to do this. And he has already started.

    There’s no assertion that the Swifties made anything up nor does he state that anything in Rudy’s ad is false (he can’t – the ad is little more than a collection of the Great Woman’s own words).

  2. Great post, I Love Capitalism! Your essay is an efficient and formidable statement that proves how utterly distinguishable the Swift Vets’ actions are from those of the petty dilettantes at Moveon.org.

    Just one thing to add re Moveon.org “pretending to own the Democratic party”–in light of the fact that not a single major player in the Democratic Party has condemned the attacks on Gen. Petraeus, it would appear to me that they are not pretending.

  5. My understanding of the Swift Boat group was that it was largely funded by homophobe Houston homebuilder Bob Perry. Bob Perry was also reportedly responsible for virtually every single dollar raised by the group that put the anti-Gay amendment in the Texas Constitution.

  9. Guys, thanks for the good words!

    Funny about Sullivan. In August 2004, his Bush Derangement Syndrome was new, and his comments on the Swift Vets were critical-but-measured. Now he dismisses them as ‘obscene’. Very well. We all know, or can guess, which side his bread is buttered on.

    #6 Tom – Apparently, Perry applauded the Swifties and donated to the best of his ability. So did millions of other Americans. Most of the group’s budget came from small donations. As Admiral Roy Hoffman (ret.) has put it, the group had “…donors in every state in the nation as we raised more than $26 million, with more than $7 million in online contributions.”

    I’m sure many among those millions of supporters were partisan Republicans. Maybe even a few homophobes. C’est la vie. The Swift Vets and POWs themselves were men with crucial (they thought), first-hand information about a major candidate. They would have been fools to turn away any individual, non-party money or help they could get in making the world aware of their information.

    They actually tried to intervene in May 2004 rather than August, so the Democrats could select a nominee other than Kerry, and the Swift Vets could then sit out the general election. Unfortunately, no one listened – the Democrats least of all.

    Why didn’t they intervene even sooner, in the Democratic primaries? Probably just human inertia. From what I read at the time, they just couldn’t believe the Democrats were going to nominate Kerry. And John O’Neill, who had studiously avoided any involvement in national politics for 30+ years up to then, was busy dealing with his wife’s kidney disease. And so on.

  13. How much money from inidividuals/organizations that predominately donate to Democrats also funded the Swift Boat Campaign? Was it absolutely ZERO?

    Of course not, Tom. Remember, not a few of the Swift Vets themselves were Democrats.

    It was a veterans’ issue. An entire generation of veterans was smeared by John Kerry. That cuts well across party lines. The Democrats should not have nominated him, period.

    I’m sure you guys are just as supportive of those people trying to get at Bush’s and McConnell’s military records. (heavy sarcasm)

    Changing the subject, Tom… but in point of fact, yes, I supported efforts in 2004 to get at Bush’s military records.

    And, happily, it took no effort because Bush released his records. To the public. Everything there was to release. While Kerry, to this day and despite all his posturing to the contrary, still has not released his records outside of a very tiny circle of pre-selected, ultra-friendly reporters at certain liberal newspapers.

  15. We all know, or can guess, which side his bread is buttered on.

    And who’s doing the buttering.

    A libel suit, had he ever filed one, would have exposed Kerry’s full records to the general public in the course of testimony, discovery, etc… Something he obviously does not want.

    There was an op-ed in the WSJ not too long ago, which pointed out that not only are libel suits very hard to win, they often wind up making the plaintiffs look like a bigger ass than they did in the first place. Wish I could find it, because they gave some good examples.

  20. posts like this

    My understanding of the Swift Boat group was that it was largely funded by homophobe Houston homebuilder Bob Perry. Bob Perry was also reportedly responsible for virtually every single dollar raised by the group that put the anti-Gay amendment in the Texas Constitution.

    are why there are homophobes

  21. Im gay, and yet Im afraid of most homos. Not because of their sexuality, but because theyre so obsessed with their sexuality and imagined victimhood that they embrace an ideology that is absolutely antithetical to all the concepts our nation was founded on just for a little pat on the head and the desperate desire to be “validated” by the government.

    At the same time they complain that they somehow dont have all the rights that straight people do (which they do), they are falling over eachother in the rush to sign their (and everyone elses) actual freedoms over to big brother.

    So yes, I am a homophobe. they scare the hell out of me.

  23. Sloop,

    While people may differ on the definition of what makes someone a homophobe, I think that if a person is basically willing to cut five figure checks to write a segment of a population out of the constitution, then I think its fair to say that that person has a ‘phobia’ or fear with that segment. Hence homophobe. Good enough?

  24. #20

    Several posters in here have tried to paint the Swift Boaters as bipartisan. My point is if there were the case, there would be donors that supported the Swifties while at the same time predominantly donating to Democrats in contested Congressional or Presidential elections. I would be very very very surprised if there was so much as ONE donor to the swifties for which that was the case.

    There is a difference between legally being ‘non-partisan’ like MoveOn.org or The Swifties and being bipartisan. Non-partisan can mean that you don’t take direct direction from any particular candidate or party. But it doesn’t make you bipartisan. The Swifties may have had some Zell Miller Democrat support (people like Ft Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle who claim to be Democrats but don’t support any candidates or policies that are advocated/nominated by the larger party), but that doesn’t mean that they have Democratic support.

  25. American Elephant (#22),

    I have been inspired by the courage you exemplified in coming out of the closet as a “gay homophobe,” so here goes:

    I’m a gay homophobe too! I too fear the gay left’s agenda to chain all gays to their manufactured pedestal of hysterical victimization and feigned outrage! I too fear being enslaved on the Democrats’ plantation of militant diversity and fanatical multi-culturalism!

    Where’s our parade?!

  26. Several posters in here have tried to paint the Swift Boaters as bipartisan.No Tom, you still haven’t got it right. I am not “painting the Swift Boaters as bi-partisan”.

    Rather, I am explaining and asserting – and with rather more evidence to support it than you have deigned to offer, thus far – that IN FACT, the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth were MULTI-partisan. (not “bi”)

    …if there were the case, there would be donors that supported the Swifties while at the same time predominantly donating to Democrats in contested Congressional or Presidential elections. I would be very very very surprised if there was…

    Kindly offer some evidence or proof that there weren’t any, Tom, other than your subjective feeling of “surprise”.

    Some of the Swift Boat Vets were Democrats. Some were Independents. Some were Republicans. And, some were from other parties. I know this from forum comments I have read on their site, and various interviews and articles, a very very few of which I did take care to cite in my main post.

    Finally, I might ask: Why is this point so important to you? That is, of all the many different points I made, why is this alone the point you are focusing on?

    The Swifties may have had some Zell Miller Democrat…

    Ah, I think I see where this is going. The incontrovertible facts that (a) some Democrats agreed with the Swifties, and (b) some Swifties were Democrats, in your world means that (c) both should be dismissed as not ‘true’ Democrats, and hence (d) anything else they had to say – e.g., about Kerry – can and should be discounted or ignored, regardless of facts.

    Am I right? (I.e, that that’s where you’re headed?)

  28. P.S. I am not surprised that the Swifties were/are MULTI-partisan (again, MULTI not “bi”)… since I myself:
    (1) found their evidence compelling,
    (2) was a Democrat for 15+ years before turning Independent in 2004, and
    (3) am not, never have been, and probably never will be, either a Bush supporter or a Republican.

  32. I think that if a person is basically willing to cut five figure checks to write a segment of a population out of the constitution, then I think its fair to say that that person has a ‘phobia’ or fear with that segment.

    By the same definition, you’d have to say that a person who is willing to cut five figure checks to candidates, congressmen and governors who gave us DADT, DOMA and the Texas anti-sodomy law is a homophobe, right?

    Furthermore, the marriage ammendment would not have written “a segment of a population out of the constitution” and you know it (or at least I hope you’re that smart).

    Unless, of course, you’re actively trying to mislead as many people as possible.

  34. While people may differ on the definition of what makes someone a homophobe, I think that if a person is basically willing to cut five figure checks to write a segment of a population out of the constitution, then I think its fair to say that that person has a ‘phobia’ or fear with that segment

    Nobody is trying to “write you out of the constitution”. Holy cow. Have you ever read the thing? Federally recognized marriage isnt a right for anyone, not even straights. As far as the government is concerned its a set of incentives to encourage a specific type of behavior. The ignorant “equal treatment” arguement has been shot down by court after court after court including in some of the most liberal states in the union. Its anaologous to arguing that the equal protection clause requires a company that pollutes without restraint to get the same tax credits given to companies that work to reduce pollution.

    The fact that people think marriage performs a vital function in society and think it would be bad for society to change that focus doesnt mean they fear or hate you. And that you think it does only shows you dont understand their argument.

  36. While people may differ on the definition of what makes someone a homophobe, I think that if a person is basically willing to cut five figure checks to write a segment of a population out of the constitution, then I think its fair to say that that person has a ‘phobia’ or fear with that segment. Hence homophobe. Good enough?

    naw – not good enough – i think using the term homophobe in your post was unnecessary – the effect of using such tactics is to dismiss any point you were trying to make – for me, anyway

  37. #22 and #26: Thanks for the honesty, homophobes. For quite some time I have been wondering when homosexual conservatives would honestly admit that they don’t like gay people. Lo and behold, you’ve done it!

    So I guess you will be voting for one of those Republicans who will wholeheartedly support homosexuals (but not the gay people). Say, Willard Romney? He’s got a new ad out I hear…..

  39. #38 sean: Well, I have seen some blacks complain that other blacks are not black enough to be “black.” Now you are getting all up in the air over whether American Elephant is gay enough to be “gay.” You victim class elites sure do know how to pee all over someone’s belief system. How about gay reparations? Can we pay you for past injustices and in return you will go away and shut up?

  40. For me, it all depends what is meant by “gay people”. Whenever “gay” means “homosexual, and fine with it, and let it be your problem, if you’re not” – Count me in. Equally, whenever the Gay Left constrains “gay” to mean “having nutty politics, street-trash morals, and no propriety”, you may then count me out.

    And now I’ve participated in the hijacking of my own thread… *sigh*.