Why would anyone even mention the SWIFT BOAT book?

[cardcounter0]

One of the co-authors of "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" is John E. O'Neill -- whose links in the GOP go back to his days as "protégé of Nixon-era dirty trickster Charles Colson" -- But that is nothing, look at the other co-author.

The other Co-author, Jerome R. Corsi, PhD is a really really scary foaming at the mouth wacko. Corsi asserted that, in 1971, Kerry's anti-war activism amounted to a proclamation by him that "Communists were right in maintaining that American values were corrupt and that the only solution was for America to capitulate so Communism could continue to spread."

Recently, he has been contributing articles to the website wintersoldier.com on the subject of Senator John Kerry's record as an anti-war activist following his service in the Vietnam War. In this series of articles, Corsi has accused Kerry of "violating the legal provision against negotiating with foreign powers (18 U.S.C. 953) and the constitutional prohibition against giving support to our nation's enemies during wartime (Article III, Section 3)"; asserted that Kerry's actions as an anti-war activist amounted to treason; and claimed that "Kerry and the VVAW consistently coordinated their efforts with Communists."

On August 6, Salon.com's Joe Conason documented links between Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the conservative online forum www.FreeRepublic.com. Conason noted that the designer of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth website is Robert A. Hahn, a director of the Free Republic Network, a conservative activist organization affiliated with FreeRepublic.com. Scott Swett, who is listed as the webmaster of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth website, swiftvets.com, also appeared on FOX News Channel host Sean Hannity's August 5 radio show to discuss the group. Swett posts frequently to FreeRepublic.com, using the pseudonym "Interesting Times," and is also a director of the Free Republic Network. The wintersoldier.com website to which Swett has contributed articles is a project of the Free Republic Network.

Corsi is also a frequent participant in FreeRepublic.com's online forums, posting under the pseudonym "jrlc" since 2001.

>>>> OKAY HERE ARE CORSI'S POSTS -- THINKING HE IS HIDDEN UNDER HIS LITTLE RIGHT WING ROCK --- HOW MANY OF THESE OPINIONS DO YOU AGREE WITH?

On Senator John Kerry

CORSI: After he married TerRAHsa, didn't John Kerry begin practicing Judiasm? He also has paternal gradparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry? (03/04/2004)

CORSI: First let's undermine the US in Vietnam. Then we can go for gay marriage. When you get to be Pres. JFK-lite, there will be no end to how much of America we can destroy. (05/17/2004)

CORSI: Just don't let anybody put a tablet with the Ten Commandments in front of the school where that girl wants to wear a Muslim scarf -- OH, No --- then the RATS would complain. Anti-Christian, Anti-American -- just like their Presidential Candidate -- Jean Francois Kerrie. (03/31/2004)

CORSI: Kerry has a long history of Communist supporters. (03/12/2004)

CORSI: Kerry offers a clear choice. Anti-American hatred. (02/08/2004)

CORSI: John F*ing Commie Kerry and Commie Ted [Kennedy] discuss their plan to hand America over to our nation's enemies. (02/04/2004)

On former President Bill Clinton

CORSI: When is this guy going to admit he's simply an anti-American communist? Won't he and his leftist wife simply go away???? Enough already. (02/24/2002)

CORSI: Hey, Bill, didn't you steal enough when you had the chance? (02/15/2002)

CORSI: Clinton doesn't get it. Afganistan, and other Moslim countries, are not poor because they lack money. The culture itself is anti-modern. But then, maybe Slick did get it and he just wants to create another bork barrel from which he and his wife can draw slop. (02/15/2002)

CORSI: Clinton was more interested in gays in the military than going after OBL. Clinton had Janet Rhino pushing the FBI to deport a child to Castro's nondemocratic Cuba, not searching out OBL sleepers in the USA. Clinton was too busy getting BJs in the Oval Office to do more than Wag the Dog after the Cole was hit. (05/16/2002)

On Senator Hillary Clinton

CORSI: HELL-ary loves the Arabs so much (kiss, kiss Mrs. Arab*RAT) -- wonder how she would look in a Burkha? (05/21/2002)

CORSI: Mullah Ali'Gore-ah is very proud of his new Bin Laden beard and he hopes others in the Democratic Party will follow his lead. Hell-ary is disappointed she cannot grow a beard, but her press secretary reminds us she can still enroll in flight school. (01/07/02)

CORSI: Let the FAT HOG run!!! [regarding a possible presidential bid] (08/30/2003)

CORSI: Hellary should resign and go away. What ever happened to the people she ran over with her car at Westchester Airport? Can't anybody sue this b*tch? (11/17/2002)

CORSI: Anybody ask why HELLary couldn't keep BJ Bill satisfied? Not lesbo or anything, is she? (06/08/2003)

On Chelsea Clinton

CORSI: According to Talk Magazine, Chubby Chelsea had a very great adventure on 9/11 in NYC and Hell-ary had the details wrong -- oh, it was terrible. (12/07/2001)

CORSI: Did the Journalist see Chubbie Chelsea among the wives. Little Katie Communist [Katie Couric] on the NBC Today show interviewed Hillary this morning and mom is worried sick about Chelsea. She was last seen in Kandahar at a Starbucks. But now, as Little Katie Communist sighed, "Who Knows?" Even British disinformation planted reports such as this grocery crap will be useful. Anyone with information about Chubbie Chelsea's whereabouts should post it now. Mom wants to know her daughter is out of harms way. Mom also wants to be at the center of the story. (11/29/2001)

CORSI: But the real question is: WHERE IS CHUBBIE CHELSEA? Is she in Kabul in danger, looking for a Starbucks? Waldo wants to know. Please, Little Katie Communist, HELP US FIND CHELSEA. THE SITUATION MAY BE URGENT. (11/29/2001)

CORSI: HILLARY SAYS CHELSEA IS MISSING AND JANET RHINO DOESN'T KNOW WHERE SHE IS? (11/28/2001)

On former Vice President Al Gore

CORSI: Gore isn't available for television. He is growing his regulation length Bin Laden beard. Mullah Ali'Gore-ah, as he now wishes to be called, is focused on his new career as a pilot. "Want to fly like bird," he says after his stint as a professor at Columbia. "No need to learn take-off or landing, just soar like bird and look at buildings." As to Florida, Mulllah Gore-ah says, "No big buildings," dismissing the importance of the state to his future plans." (12/15/2001)

On the Media

CORSI: Time to FREEP Chris Matthews of MSNBC. MSNBC is beginning to stand for "More Sh*t, Nothing But Communism." (05/16/2002)

CORSI: I didn't realize Little Katie Communist of the NBC Today Show knew how to hack a website. Finally something impressive from the little wimp. [responding to news that USA Today's website had been hacked and that the hackers were mocking President George W. Bush's Christianity] (07/12/2002)

CORSI: COMMUNISM -- it's simple NBC = NOTHING BUT COMMUNISM. (04/19/2004)

CORSI: Susan Estrogen -- even the voice grates. But then with supporters like her and Ted Kennedy, who needs enemies. Let Susan BLAH BLAH screatch -- only Chrissy Matthews whines better. (04/13/2004)

Assorted

CORSI: Perfect Liberal -- lesbian, self-absorbed, hates America, anxious to impose her values on everybody else. [on Martina Navratilova] (06/26/2002)

CORSI: And now we get Pooh-LEFTY pushed on us by the RATS as Minority Leader in the House -- here come the SanFrancisco liberals -- hope the RATS go back to focusing the debate on gay marriages and other pro-choice topics close to Pelosi's heart. (11/18/2002)

CORSI: Too bad the plane didn't crash into the TV set of the NBC show "THE LEFT WING" -- especially when Martin Sheen was "acting." (06/07/2003)

>>>>>><<<<<<&l t;
NOW WHO BUT THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY IS INTERESTED IN WHAT THIS PIECE OF CRAP HAS TO SAY ABOUT JOHN KERRY'S SERVICE RECORD? THINK HE MIGHT HAVE SUPPORTED THE OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING?

[MMMMMM]

Ignoring what has been written, based on your opinion of the source, is an inherently flawed approach.

The facts are ALL that matter, not the source.

I personally have not much interest in the book, nor even in the entire Swift Boat matter. If however I did, I would assemble information, analyze it, then try to formulate a conclusion of sorts.

Your penchant for the Ad Hominem Dismissal Approach is clearly revealed in your post title. When you get beyond that childish, churlish attitude, maybe you will start to be able to assess things on an entirely rational basis. I am not speaking to the Swift Boat issue only (because, again, I don't care much about it), but rather am speaking in general to your flawed approach to such things.

I can think of many reasons why someone with an interest in Swift Boat/Kerry would want to read the book, and be correct in so doing, if their aim is to assemble information.

This standard approach of yours--blanket dismissal when you don't like the source--is obviously why you persistently attacked the source rather than discussing the subject matter when I posted the WND article on Hastert's statements about taxation. Truly, it wouldn't much matter if the KKK or the Junior Stalinist League or some Neo-Nazi party posted the article: if it contains factual information about what a Congressman said on an important issue, it is worthy of discussion, not dismissal. And WND is a far cry from any of those groups--as the authors of this book are probably not nearly the "wackos" you portray them as being.

If you will turn your attention to the arguments and facts, and quit employing blanket dismissal, merely because you don't like "the source", you will have taken one giant step for cardcounter0 towards intellectual maturity and the rational approach.

[eLROY]

One question, cardcounter0: Do you think John Kerry was in Cambodia over Christmas?

[cardcounter0]

Actually considering the source and the source's agenda is very important. If I go to a lunatic asylum and some drooling idiot tells me he has invented a method of cold fusion, I consider the source and conclude it is likely that the raving looney is actually a raving looney. Now if a Noble Prize winner in Chemistry tells me he has invented a method of cold fusion, I will probably put more weight on this statement.

In this case, we have one of Nixion's old Dirty Tricksters teamed up with a man unable to distinguish the difference between NBC and Pravda. These guys are filtering and presenting 'facts' for us to consider. I think, just like in the case of the drooling idiot, it is safe to dismiss any findings they have.

Unless you believe Admiral Zumwalt was a Commie, since he was the guy that pinned the medals on Kerry's chest.

[cardcounter0]

I think he was one hell of a lot closer than Bush ever was.

I think he came under 100% more enemy fire.

I think he had to make 100% more decisions in the heat of battle.

I think he saw the direct consequences of his actions in war, I don't think Bush has ever even indirectly suffered from a mistake he has made, in fact, he can't recall ever making a mistake.

Actually your question shows how little you know about the matter. Kerry was in a hostile jungle swamp under enemy fire in a little boat on a meandering Mekong River. It seems he was maybe 50 miles from the border (this wasn't the era of GPS -- and any mission actually in Cambodia would be denied or classified). Years later, a war bill was being debated in the Senate, probably by a bunch of chicken-hawks who had never seen action, and Kerry said "Hey, wait a minute. I was there. I've seen action."

Now the nitpick Republican brigade, able to ignore the non-existance of huge stockpiles of WMDs, is taking him to task about "Where you ever actuall IN Cambodia?" What a smoke screen! Was Bush? Was Cheney? Was Rove? Was Rumsfield? Why is this such an important question, since we accept the lies of the administration without any problems?

[Chris Alger]

It's not ad hominem to dismiss the joint efforts of (1) an adolescent racist homophobe in the habit of labelling everyone to the left of Oliver North a "communist" (Corsi) and (2) a serial liar (O'Neill). When people attack a source for no other reason than a perceived "bias," that's ad hominen. When people attack a source because of its proven inability to reason or tell the truth, it's common sense.

As for the authors "probably not nearly the 'wackos' you portray them as being," all one needs is read Corsi's own words quoted in the excellent and revealing post above.

[eLROY]

So you admit Kerry invented the turning point in his life that was seared into his memory. And then you lie about the debate in which he lied, and what he said in it. The debate dealt with Presidents running secret wars and lying about them. But in fact it was Kerry, not Nixon, who was lying. Was Nixon even in office?

[Utah]

Yes and no.

Facts are facts arent they? However, the credibility of the source is important, at least to me. For example, when someone posts something from the NYT (krugman excluded), Slate, or Salon I will give it a heck of a lot more credit than if its from FAIR or some left or right hate group.

I have thought that Kerry's record was clearly in play because Kerry made it so. However, I didnt accept the facts of those questioning him. Now that it has been shown that Kerry clearly lied about Cambodia and misled about Alston, I think there is now plenty to question.

[cardcounter0]

Yeah, the guy spend Christmas in the Hamptons, he wasn't in the middle of the Vietnam War on a little boat 50 miles from Cambodia (probably close enough to see the B52s flying over and hear the bombs exploding).

Nixon denied any involvement in Cambodia. The bombing didn't take place. Our troops weren't there.

So Kerry is the liar, and Nixon told the truth? Geez, were you the guy that came up with the photos that were shown to the UN 'proving' that Iraq had HUGE STOCKPILES OF WMDs? Now there is a real lie.

[Chris Alger]

It's incredible that defenders of the most notorious cabal of official liars since well, Reagan, can hope to tag Kerry for being "5 miles" across the Cambodian border on Dec. 24, 1968 (as Kerry originally claimed) or merely patrolling "in the watery borders" of Cambodia as Kerry's staff now admits.

Kerry raised his Cambodian experience to show that Nixon lied about the absence of troops in Cambodia ("we made a conscious decision not to send combat troops" to Cambodia). In fact, U.S. troops had been operating in Cambodia for nearly five years when Nixon told that lie. On this issue, Kerry has been proven right. The particular date on which he crossed into Cambodia before the U.S. was willing to admit it (that he did so no one seems to doubt) hardly seems material.