QandO
Questions and Observations| « The Coward Cheney | Main | Should we go or should we stay? » |
|
August 19, 2004 Here a canard, there a canard, everywhere I look a canard After reading her column in the Indianopolis Star, I can only characterize Susan Estrich as a classic "idiot savant". She writes well, but other than that, she hasn't got a whole bunch going for her. For instance her "analysis" of the Swift Boat Vets ad makes the following assumptions: In order to believe the central claim of the swift boat vets, you have to call the guy who says Kerry saved his life, whom Kerry hadn't seen in three decades, a liar. No, Ms. Estrich, you don't. As I explained below, its entirely conceivable that Jim Rassmann believes every word he says even though every word he says is wrong. Note I didn't say a "lie". I've come to the conclusion, after listening, watching and reading what he has to say that he believes what he says to be the truth. Of course that doesn't make it the truth. It simply makes it his version. And there are others who were right there who disagree with his version. You have to take on not only Kerry's account of what happened that night, but nine of the 10 men who were in his boat with him, and are still alive. Well, first, Ms. Estrich, it wasn't at night and second there are only 6 on a Swift boat. So the 6 on Kerry's boat agree. The 18 on the other three boats disagree. Which side would you fall on if given those numbers and the evidence which shows not a single one of the boats in that engagment, to include Kerry's recieved a single scratch from small arms fire. They were either faced with the most attrocious shots among the VC, or nothing happened just as they said. Seems pretty cut and dried in that regard. This information has been available for some time, but apparently Ms. Estrich couldn't be bothered to chase it down. Some of this has been around for a while, but most of it has been dredged up for this campaign, reminiscent of the tactics used against previous Vietnam vets, including John McCain and Max Cleland, both of whom have condemned the ad and called on Bush to do the same. Uh, no. Cleland got booted for a extremely liberal voting record after getting elected by running as a centerist. Its Georgia for goodness sake. The only one who questioned Cleland's patriotism was Cleland when he whined about the why of his defeat. He hasn't faced the fact yet it had to do with his voting record and not his combat record. The irony of McCain's condemnation of the ad is they are step-children of his McCain-Finegold act. I find it relatively funny that he's decrying what he brought to be. Estrich's opinion of the SBVT ads? There are two problems with an ad like this. Conveniently ignored by Estrich is the fact that it wouldn't be on anyone's radar screen if Kerry hadn't used it as the centerpiece of his campaign. He arrives at the convention in a water-taxi "Swift boat" with his "band of brothers". He salutes as his first act and "reports for duty". He trots his "band of brothers" out on stage not to mention ensuring each and every one of them have an opportunity to speak to the convention about Kerry's alleged heroics. Which is more sleazy Ms. Estrich .... disputation of the events by those who were there or embellishing events and faking qualifications for awards? Guess which I find to be more sleazy. And, of course, Estrich forgets that same people who now dispute Mr. Kerry's version of events today have had their reputations tarnished by a pack a lies Kerry told 35 years ago. Payback's hell, isn't it Susan? Second, what makes it even worse is that the guy who stands to benefit had a rich daddy who managed to pull strings so he didn't have to serve at all. This is, ultimately, the most inexplicable aspect of this comparison. A) His rich daddy did no such thing (another of the left's favorite unfounded canards) and B) it isn't inexplicable at all when you consider the fact that Kerry dishonored his comrades 35 years ago and this is their first opportunity to point this out. But in order to understand that, Estrich needs to dig a little deeper than the first page of the DNC talking points.
Yes, the ad broke about 2 weeks ago, and in the ensuing time it has reduced the left to screaming, whining, hissing, name-calling fits, none of which have successfully refuted a single allegation of the SBVTs. Not one. They've tried legal intimidation, they've called on Bush, who had nothing to do with the McCain's bastard step-child, to condemn the ad. They've tried to divert attention by slamming those who paid for the ad as being partisan. They've tried to change the subject by attempting to revive the "Bush was AWOL" nonsense. But what they haven't done is successfully refute a single allegation of the Swiftees. Estrich laments that if it weren't for talk radio the main stream media would have given this its final yawn and ignored it. She's apparently unaware of the fact that bloggers have also taken this on and aren't about to let it go without some damn good answers. Estrich asks: If Bush condemns the ad, demands that his supporters take it off the air, what would they do? First he has no right to demand its removal. Per Mr. McCain's baby, its simply an exercise of free speech. And, despite Estrich's inferrence, there's absolutely no evidence that the majority of the SBVT are Bush supporters. If he told his donors not to give a penny to the group that made the ad, would the vets themselves be able to get it on the air? You bet they would. They've been raking in donations from across the country ... from VETERANS who are sickened by Kerry and what he did after the war. Perhaps you missed the less than enthusiastic response he was given at the VFW convention, Ms Estrich. When veterans stand and turn their back on someone, its likely they'll answer the call to fund an ad which tells what they consider to be the truth ... and they have. All you have to do is read the forum on the SBVT site to understand how they're funding the ad. Stick with teaching law, Susan. You're over you head in this one. |
I bow to you! Susan Estrich is the one of the many liberal banes of my existence. She is probably, in accordance to what you said, one of the dumbest intellectuals I have ever heard speak. It amazes me that someone from USC who is so well-versed and knowledgable would follow the liberal sheeple propaganda with such ignorant gusto. After reading your post tearing her apart, I can now sleep at night. Thank you.
Posted by: DeoDuce at August 19, 2004 04:44 PM
Can I just say, and this is from some personal experience, that Estrich is a hack--and a second rate one at that.
Posted by: RS at August 19, 2004 04:48 PM
Bush has probably done as much as he can legally. He asked that all the 527 ads of both parties be taken off the air. Neither he nor his campaign can legally have any interaction with pro Bush 527s.
Posted by: EddieP at August 19, 2004 05:26 PM
Estrich - I change the channel everytime I hear that voice. I keep wanting to call in and encourage her to go to rehab.
(Yes, she reminds me of several drunks I knew in my youth.)
Posted by: Deb at August 19, 2004 07:35 PM
I agree with your assessment of the Cleland situation but I have read about some ads which show him along with Osama and I think Saddam. THe ads were pulled by the RNC after protests. (from memory)
I hate Susan Esterich, I cant even read her quotes without hearing her ANNOYING NASAL WHINING VOICE. When she is on Hannidy I just hit the mute button while she talks.
Posted by: retired military at August 19, 2004 08:52 PM
Look at Drudge....it's the media to Kerry's rescue!
Hope the Swifties are ready for the media to unload on them.
As for Kerry and his charges: 1 word- "MoveOn"
Endgame
Posted by: shark at August 19, 2004 09:06 PM
Never heard of Shesan Ostrich before. She won't hear your complaints either, what with all that sand in her ears.
Posted by: pdq332 at August 19, 2004 10:03 PM
You said it best, McQ, "Which is more sleazy.... disputation of the events by those who were there or embellishing events and faking qualifications for awards? Guess which I find to be more sleazy."
Quite frankly, I find your analysis to be sleazy. Were *you* there, McQ? Of course you weren't. Therefore, your opinion is dev/nul in this case.
Kerry *was* there...(as were all the other Swift Boat folks). The truth lies within them. Not you.
Criminy. Get over this already. Could we please talk about something important? Like our economy or homeland security or healthcare or outsourcing or the friggin' deficit...?! Something of substance?
Posted by: Becky at August 20, 2004 12:23 AM
This is one of those silly little posts where the 'author' uses a silly little pseudonym to offer a contrary point of view to a published editorial opinion. The author purports to "rip apart" or "dissect" the editorial opinion through brilliant and thoughtful counter-analysis.
Unfortnately, the author takes himself seriously. He (she?) ends the diatribe with a pithy little put-down: "Stick with teaching law, Susan. You're over you head in this one."
This kind of piece, full of opinion, unsupported by factual references, is very persuasive. If you take the author seriously, of course. On the other hand, if you actually read the piece, it comes across as childish and intemperate.
Susan Esterich is a flake. Why waste your time?
Oh well, at least no trees are being cut down to 'print' it.
Posted by: mkultra at August 20, 2004 01:06 AM
BTW, Kerry shot himself with shrapnel.
That Bastard.
Posted by: mkultra at August 20, 2004 01:22 AM
Quite frankly, I find your analysis to be sleazy. Were *you* there, McQ? Of course you weren't. Therefore, your opinion is dev/nul in this case.
Actually, Becky, McQ was in Vietnam, and has a wealth of information on how the military works. I'd say his opinion on this matter is quite valuable.
Posted by: Steverino at August 20, 2004 02:04 AM
Becky: Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. BTW, if you're tired of it why read this then?
Mkultra:
Thanks buddy, one thing I have come to count on is getting a laugh from you. Next time though, don't hit the cooking sherry so hard.
This kind of piece, full of opinion, unsupported by factual references, is very persuasive. If you take the author seriously, of course. On the other hand, if you actually read the piece, it comes across as childish and intemperate.
LOL! From the guy who invented "childish and interperate". Keep it up mkultra ... love it!
Posted by: McQ at August 20, 2004 07:08 AM
McQ writes,
The 18 on the other three boats disagree. Which side would you fall on if given those numbers and the evidence which shows not a single one of the boats in that engagment, to include Kerry's recieved a single scratch from small arms fire.
There were bullet holes in Thurlow's own boat, a fact later used to confront Thurlow — along with his own Bronze Star citation for that incident, which refers to "enemy bullets... enemy fire".
Several other veterans have come forward to support Kerry and Rassmann on this point: Wayne D. Langhofer, Del Sandusky, and James Wasser.
Other surviving crew mates corroborate that account. "I was there," crew mate Del Sandusky told CNN. "I saw the bullets skimming across the water. I saw the firefight gun flashes from the jungle. I know the firefight and the ambush we were in."
Everybody aboard Kerry's boat, including Rassmann, says there was fire from both riverbanks, and the official after-action report speaks of all boats receiving "heavy a/w [automatic weapons] and s/a [small arms] from both banks." The Bronze Star citations for Kerry and Thurlow also speak of prolonged enemy fire.
A report on "battle damage" to Thurlow's boat mentions "three 30 cal bullet holes about super structure." ...
Until now, eyewitness evidence supporting Kerry's version had come only from his own crewmen. But yesterday, The Post independently contacted a participant who has not spoken out so far in favor of either camp who remembers coming under enemy fire. "There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river," said Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat that was directly behind Kerry's.
Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the "clack, clack, clack" of enemy AK-47s, as well as muzzle flashes from the riverbanks. Langhofer, who now works at a Kansas gunpowder plant, said he was approached several months ago by leaders of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth but declined their requests to speak out against Kerry.
[See links, quotes, and further discussion at Political Animal.]
Posted by: Raven at August 22, 2004 10:22 AM
Sorry Raven, three holes doesn't do it. If it was an ambush with "heavy automatic weapons" and "small arms" there'd be some chewed up boats. Especially when all but Kerry's stopped to render aid and support the 3 boat.
The "clack-clack" Langhofer "heard" could very well have been the suppressive fire from the PCFs on the other side of the river executing the SOP in case of ambush.
So you've produced 8 people (94 boat crew, Rassman and Langhofer) while the SBVTs have about 17 to 22 who say otherwise.
As the USMC Sgt. Major said here in a comment ... it seems a bit of "I'll say it happened that way if you say it happened that way".
And now they can't back down despite the dearth of evidence to support the claim (and no, 3 bullet holes in one boat among 5 does not support their claim).
Posted by: McQ at August 22, 2004 11:36 AM