pudge's Journal: Smears

I just saw a journalist on TV compare the Bush administration's statements about Rep. Murtha to the Bush "smears on John Kerry, Max Cleland, and John McCain," referring to things like the Swift Boat Vets for Truth against Kerry, the ads against Cleland, and the rumors about McCain.

There is not one shred of evidence anyone's ever brought to the public that Bush, or anyone in his campaign or administration, had anything at all to do with any of those things.

(And what's worse, the ads against Cleland were actually very benign, and not at all what the popular press likes to pretend.)

So for those that think Bush was behind those things, fine, but there's not a jot of evidence of it, and you are believing it purely on faith.

Sentence Structure A Little Weird

[ellem]

but OK. I'm with you.

The real question is how long will it take for them to go after Col. Bubp... wow that was fast [huffingtonpost.com]

Re:Sentence Structure A Little Weird

[baldass_newbie]

So the argument against Bupp is that he's a Republcan?
Does that mean that Murtha's attack is disqualified, Q.E.D.?

Oh no, he's a hawk because uh, because...because they said so.

Re:Sentence Structure A Little Weird

[pudge]

So the argument against Bupp is that he's a Republcan?

Yes. Although I've heard Bubp didn't even say what Schmidt said he said; he denied it, apparently.

Oh no, he's a hawk because uh, because...because they said so.

Yeah, weird. He's been against the war, calling for us to come home, for over two years.

Moo

[ncc74656]

I just saw a journalist on TV compare the Bush administration's statements about Rep. Murtha to the Bush "smears on John Kerry, Max Cleland, and John McCain," referring to things like the Swift Boat Vets for Truth against Kerry, the ads against Cleland, and the rumors about McCain.

There is not one shred of evidence anyone's ever brought to the public that Bush, or anyone in his campaign or administration, had anything at all to do with any of those things.

There's also the minor point that a smear is a

Re:Moo

[pudge]

There's also the minor point that a smear is a lie spread about someone or something with malicious intent. It's not a smear if it's the truth. There was plenty of backup material for what the Swift Boat Vets were saying.

I disagree slightly, on two counts. First, the claims did not all have significant backup. Many of them were simply the word of others.

Second, and more importantly, it can still be a smear based on how you present it, especially when taking my "First" into consideration.

So say we know tha

Re:Moo

[Jhon]

I disagree slightly, on two counts. First, the claims did not all have significant backup. Many of them were simply the word of others.

On a related note, Kerry himself, on the Dick Cavett show said that if we were to follow the rules set at Nuremberg, that he himself was guilty of war crimes.

Now, On Russert, in (April?) 2004, he backed off of it saying his remarks were, "over the top" or "exaggerated". This played right in to what the swift boat vets were claiming -- that he deliberately defamed the sol

Re:Moo

[cascadefx]

So its not a smear because the makers of the Ad also wrote a book?

That sure is plenty of evidence.

Good one. Burn.