Swift Boaters Return

Ever wonder what happened to the guys who financed those Swift Boat ads? Well, Chris Hayes did. And it turns out that they've been "contributing and bundling nearly $200,000 to presidential candidates" including most notably Saint John McCain of Arizona:

The most notable recipient of Swift Boat largesse is John McCain, erstwhile front-runner and Stand Up Guy. When the Swift Boat ads were first unleashed, McCain was alone among his Republican colleagues to condemn them. A fellow Vietnam veteran, a good friend of Kerry's and a former target of smears about his own service, McCain called the ads "dishonest and dishonorable," a "cheap stunt," and he urged Bush to condemn them. But in pursuit of the GOP nomination, McCain ditched the mantle of maverick for that of hack, and his once-floundering, possibly rejuvenated campaign has been aided along the way by $61,650 from Swift Boat donors and their associates. "There is such a thing as dirty money," said Senator Kerry in a statement, after The Nation informed him of McCain's FEC records. "I'm surprised that the John McCain I knew who was smeared in 2000 and thought so-called Swift Boating was wrong in 2004 would feel comfortable taking their money after seeing the way it was used to hurt the veterans I know he loves."

That's what we like to call solid reporting. But wait for the Straight Talk™ when called on it:

(McCain's office did not return calls for comment.)

So very straight. Meanwhile, it's worth recalling that the people behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth weren't actually a bunch of aggrieved veterans pissed off at John Kerry's anti-war activities. Rather, the main donors were extremely wealthy businessmen like developer Bob Perry, oilman T. Boone Pickens, and drugstore mogul and investor Harold Simmons whose multimillion dollar contributions were solid investments in acquiring political power on behalf of the corrupt Bush Republican machine that could, in turn, further enrich them.

Comments

It should be noted, on the flip, that the underground Swift Boat movement, Jerome Corsi and Ted Sampley, really hate McCain too, and could have an effect if he wins the nomination:

http://www.usvetdsp.com/sampbio.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Corsi#Controversy

http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/conason/2004/02/10/kerry_smear/

Posted by Sam | January 4, 2008 1:27 PM

It's surprising that some wealthy Democrats - maybe drawn from trial lawyers (forgive me, Petey!) - don't set up these sort of front groups to nuke various Republican candidates.

A Dem in the White House is worth a lot of money to trial lawyers and they're not a bunch usually thought to be much inhibited by feelings of shame or seemliness. So I'm not sure why it doesn't happen.

Posted by otto | January 4, 2008 1:48 PM

The Swift Boat veterans nailed Kerry dead-to-rights

This slickster with 4 months in vietnam walking away with a Silver Star for NOTHING was outrageous

Kerry was/is full of shit and the reason he didn't "confront" his fellow veterans is he had nothing to confront them with

Kerry co-headed Vietnam Vets against the War with a 100% phoney vet - a man who never even served but mau-maued a bunch of liberals into thinking he was a battle vet - what a sham and a shame. For Shame!

Posted by Jozef | January 4, 2008 2:29 PM

1) I'm kinda puzzled by the "warrior" aura that surrounds John McCain and the Swift Boat crew. They're NAVY, for Christ's sake.

2) Why don't we cut the crap. The Army and Marines combat units had very high casualties during Vietnam --whereas the Navy and Air Force had very few casualties. The Navy hasn't really gone "in harm's way" since WWII.

3) In a war , it's drafted civilians, National Guard (not Army) reserves, and enlisted men who suffer the casualties --plus the Lieutenants and Sargents. The professional officer corps, less so. Especially Colonel and above.

4) John McCain was an AVIATOR, for Christ's sakes. Admittedly one who caught a tough break , who performed well under difficult conditions but who nonetheless survived and returned home. A lot of Army soldiers and Marines were not so fortunate.

5) I suspect the real warriors are not that fucking happy with McCain's cavalier "100 year" remark. It's one thing to have to spend lives when the nation's security is at stake -- like Winston Churchill had to do in WWII. But ask the men who actually served on the ground in Vietnam and Iraq what they think about unnecessary wars.

6) Aviation, whether Air Force or Navy, is merely a hideously expensive and unreliable form of artillery.

Posted by Don Williams | January 4, 2008 2:32 PM

Aviation wins wars

The only time we ever got the N . Vietnamese attention in Nam was Linebacker I and II

of course the lily-livered leftists screamed (god forbid we might actually win!)

Aviation does not win in pacification like Iraq where you have to get the people on the ground on your side - although we are beginning to successfully do that - but you sure as hell would never win a war of any kind without aviation

You need about a 6:1 advantage in troops to win a ground war (on offense)- aviation changes everything

Oh, I'm former US Air Force

Posted by Jozef | January 4, 2008 2:39 PM

Oh, I'm former US Air Force
Posted by Jozef | January 4, 2008 2:39 PM

No Kidding; it's why your ideas blow.

Posted by Northern Observer | January 4, 2008 2:48 PM

Factual question for Matt, if you're reading this: Are there really many instances of candidates repudiating money from nasty people?

Seems like the entire process of figuring out whether the people donating to you are evil is just really a headache, so the candidates would adopt a policy of accepting any donations that aren't from Godzilla.

Posted by Justin | January 4, 2008 2:55 PM

Re Jozef's comment "Aviation does not win in pacification like Iraq where you have to get the people on the ground on your side "
---------
So, after 13 years of Air Force bombing and naplam strikes, how many South Vietnamese were supporting the Saigon government in 1971?

Posted by Don Williams | January 4, 2008 2:55 PM

Matt seems remarkably sanguine about supporting a candidate who appeals to right-wing spear-carriers, each of whom will almost certainly return to McCain once he becomes viable.

Posted by kidneystones | January 4, 2008 3:30 PM

Q So, after 13 years of Air Force bombing and naplam strikes, how many South Vietnamese were supporting the Saigon government in 1971?

A Most of them. If they had been as well supported by the US as the N Vietnamese were (N vietnam had Russian, N Korean and Chines military assistance in extremis) they would most certainly have prevailed. N Vietnam was able to field a huge army, supported by an airforce staffed by foreign pilots (N Koreans mostly) to attack the south and the cowards in the US Congress didn't do a thing about it. Fact.

Posted by Jozef | January 4, 2008 4:52 PM

"Aviation, whether Air Force or Navy, is merely a hideously expensive and unreliable form of artillery."

You forgot longer-range and more mobile.

Posted by JordanT | January 4, 2008 5:07 PM

Re Jozef's reply "Most of them"
---------
Yes, we all saw that great horde of South Vietnamese lining up to join the Army and replace US troops.

And who can help but admire how they exterminated all those grossly outnumbered Viet Cong in their midst.

Posted by Don Williams | January 4, 2008 6:11 PM

As Jozef said, the Swift boaters nailed Ketty dead to rights.

All the MSM and Lefty cant about the "great smear" is revisionism.

1. His own words in front of Congress and with the North Vietnamese delegation in Paris nailed him.

2. The withering, objective criticism of his peer officers and commanding officers that he was a duplicitous scumbag - overwhelmed the boat crew Kerry had for 4 months who were cultivated by Kerry over 30 years bestowing favors and money on..

3. Kerry's refusal to release the full documentation of his service, resolving the two suspect purple hearts or the nature of his original discharge (less than honorable?) cast doubts. No, they nailed him..

4. "Christmas in Cambodia" and past statements he threw away his own medals to protest Nixon's racist war - were exposed as lies. Kerry was no where near Cambodia, he framed his own medals and threw away a friends. Nailed again.

Many Lefties, and the Jews in the Media and in upper Democrat policy-making circles do not understand that many Americans are still deep into an honor culture - where education and money do not matter as much as integrity.

Kerry lost that vote. If the Republicans had run Kucinich, or 35-bomber mission George McGovern against Kerry, the Vets and active duty still would have voted the honorable Kucinichor McGovern over Kerry.

Posted by Chris Ford | January 4, 2008 9:22 PM

As long as we're having a civil discussion, the question must be asked: were John McCain's five and a half years as a POW self-inflicted? Are we sure he didn't shoot down his own plane??

Posted by Grumpy | January 4, 2008 9:45 PM

All Dallas business leaders. If we didn't have cheap houses and an outstanding attractive-girl-to-attractive-guy ratio, I'd leave.

Posted by Mike | January 5, 2008 5:48 AM

Many Lefties, and the Jews in the Media and in upper Democrat policy-making circles do not understand that many Americans are still deep into an honor culture - where education and money do not matter as much as integrity.

Kerry lost that vote.

Yes, because we all know that the winner of 'that vote' was a goddamn Mobius strip of integrity, rather than a Yale-educated Fauntleroy.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | January 5, 2008 9:22 AM

I live in Ohio, and I actually saw the Swift Boat ads. The ad that affected me the most was the one with two widows who talked about how their husbands felt when Kerry testified about war atrocities. You can't call that disinformation. These were two widows speaking their own feelings about Kerry and the damage that his testimony caused. I've never heard that ad disputed, and it's rarely even talked about. I think it hit home. Who cares who funded it? Those two women would not have been able to afford putting on the ad themselves. I'm glad someone fronted the money so that their stories could be heard.
Look, even if you think Kerry was right in testifying before Congress, and think that everything he said was accurate, it was in horrible taste for him to then talk about his "band of brothers" in Vietnam as if he was truly one of them. He used his Vietnam service as a boast, yet he undermined the war effort. There were many Vietnam veterans who detested him, and voted against him (including some Democrats who would have voted for anyone except Kerry). Can you blame them?
It's easy to blame the ones who funded the ads, but Kerry was the one who invited the reaction. Find a Vietnam veteran, and ask him about Kerry. I don't think you will hear much antagonism towards the Swift Boat ads.

Posted by ohio voter | January 5, 2008 9:37 AM

This is stupid. As a veteran, let me tell you that I don't equate supporting the "war effort" with supporting the troops. Soldiers don't get to choose their battles, and quite frequently suspect that they've been sent abroad for idiotic reasons. This is a consequence of the constitutional arrangement whereby the military is subordinated to the political system. I don't identify with the Iraq War, as if, as soon as someone suggests it was a bad idea they must be saying that I'm a horrible person. Kerry went to Vietnam, decided it was a bullshit war (bullshit wars: they happen), and this actually obligated him as a ex-serviceman to do what little he could to see that war ended, not on some generic philosophical grounds, but specifically in the name of his former comrades-in-arms, to get them out of a stupid, bloody situation that wasn't serving any good purpose. So he upset some guys who served, and some little old widows made sad faces on TV. The idea that Kerry was somehow obligated by his service to either keep his opinions to himself or put on a cheerleading outfit for commie killing is straightforwardly disingenuous and absurd.

Posted by gerontion | January 5, 2008 8:07 PM