How things work.
By tacitus Posted in Elections — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The New York Times has discovered that a woman named Susan Arceneaux, who works for the Swift vets, is also an officer at the Majority Leader's Fund, which is "affiliated" with former House majority leader Dick Armey. Arceneaux also has lots of contacts with other Republicans. All this is "another indication of [Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's] web of ties to the Republican Party." Stay with me for the implicit argument: Arceneaux hangs with Republicans, Dick Armey is Republican, and the President is Republican, and the President is campaigning for reelection. And these ads are targeted against the President's opponent. Therefore, the Swift ads are sponsored by the President.
Make sense? No? Good. Now let's talk about how the political class in DC really works. Read on.
I don't know Susan Arceneaux. I don't know anyone involved with Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. And I don't know the President of the United States. But I do know a bit -- a vanishingly small bit -- of how professional and social connections work inside the Beltway. Let me speak of an example with which I am familiar -- me.
First of all, let's put me in my proper place in the universe of the DC political class: at the bottom. Well, not at the very bottom, but close to it. Let's say that I commit some heinous crime, or am suspected of such, etc. -- it doesn't matter what it is, but it's damning to those who may be associated with me. Whom might those people be?
There's the Cabinet secretary whom I wrote speeches for, and all his associated high-level personnel with whom I worked. There's the Congressional chief of staff whom I count as a close friend. There's the small constellation of Bush Administration political appointees in various Departments with whom I maintain social contact. There's the high-level Administration official whom I know with close family ties to both the Bush and Cheney families. There are the two future United States Senators whom I've fundraised for. There's the fellow I know with a significant job in the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign. There's the small handful of major figures in right-wing fundraising whom I've met with. There are the various African high-level political figures, mostly in health ministries, with whom I've met and worked. There's the United States Ambassador with whom I've worked. There's John Kerry's future Secretary of State, whom I've met, and whose organization I've worked with on several occasions. And there's the President of the United States, from whom I am separated by, as they say, one degree.
Do all these folks live in fear of the fallout from my exposure as a criminal, or Red State's downfall as a scam organization? No. Would it be possible, in those events, for diligent-minded folks to draw connections to these people? Yes. Would those connections be meaningful or valid for the purpose of asserting collusion or associative guilt?
Well, that's the question, isn't it?
This is not to self-indulgently name-drop. If you work in politics in DC at a mid- to low-level for, say, a year, this is a normal roster of contacts. Friends who are really into this scene (and I'm not -- I fled to the private sector and western Maryland as soon as the opportunity presented itself) have vastly more impressive rolodexes than this. The point here is that you can draw connections from pretty much anyone to anyone in the closed, superheated world of political activism. Democrat or Republican, it makes no difference. It's not that there are a few Kevin Bacon figures in this professional universe -- it's that everyone is Kevin Bacon, linked to one another through donations, through past affiliation, through friendship, through shared memberships, through favors done, etc. It's not what I would describe as an entirely healthy social atmosphere, but it has the advantage of cohesion and utility. And -- because it bears reiterating -- it's the norm.
The real story here isn't that the New York Times has uncovered "another indication of [Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's] web of ties to the Republican Party" -- it's that the New York Times is apparently clueless as to the normal professional and social interplay of Washington, DC. That's the charitable explanation: the likely explanation is that the cluelessness is disingenuous. That SBVFT is full of -- surprise! -- Republicans is not news. That a political activist organization is full of -- horrors! -- activists is not news. That people with similar interests and professions -- shock! -- know each other is not news. Next, the NYT will reveal that the VFW is mostly veterans.
It's a "What liberal media?" moment for sure. And while indignant Democrats seeking to avoid at all costs any reckoning for their party and party leaders' shameful actions of the Vietnam era -- the bloody consequences of which continue to this day -- will doubtless seize upon this "revelation" as proof of black perfidy (and consequently invoke the Ackbar defense), the truth is far more pedestrian. Which, of course, the Kerry campaign knows. But it's always galling to reap as you sow: the man who bellowed about the President having others do his "dirty work" for him is, after all, himself an experienced connoisseur of that method.
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | African-American outreach -- an update — Comments (1) »
How things work. 22 Comments (0 topical, 22 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I'm a Republican from Texas. What more need be said? Clearly, I'm the missing link in the chain.
Last night, he insisted that the President was "just two degrees of separation" from the ads, and did an extended riff on the Kevin Bacon game.
Of course, he then stuck to the DNC talking points on the issue. Like always.
I wonder what it feels like to know that yes, you're funny, but you'll never compare to Dave Chapelle?
It's crushing. I have it even worse: I'm not even funny to start off with.
Funny how they never mention that John O'Neill hasn't voted for a Republican since Reagan (according to what he said on some talk show).
Yeah, but he lies a lot. Like "no bullet holes". And he seems to disapprove of people using things like "official Navy records" to question his claims.
So maybe they don't mention that he hasn't voted Republican because, like anyone with half a brain, they don't believe him.
but medical science does wonderful things these days.
Hasn't one of the requests from SVFT and most of the other vocal players been for Kerry to sign the 180 and release the "official Navy records"?
But that's really beside the point. What is already out there is more than enough to discredit O'Neill.
I have the following on good authority and I am in contact with the New York Times to make sure they have this information...
George Bush's mother is a woman;
She is married to George Bush's father George H.W. Bush;
G.H.W. Bush's mother is a woman;
All of the senior 'officials' of SVFT have mothers who are women.
Ispo facto, George Bush is behind the SVFT ads.
also include things like Kerry's PDF of his DD214 on his website that lists one of his medals a "Silver Star with Combat V"
A "combat V" is never awarded with a Silver Star.
"But that's really beside the point. What is already out there is more than enough to discredit O'Neill"
So by that measure, since the swifties were correct on the Cambodia issue (and Kerry has recanted), then Kerry is also discredited on his war record?
that I would like answered. I haven't bought into anybody's truthfulness yet, not on 35 year old issues dealing with wartime records. I would like to see the complete records. Kerry has posted extracts on his website ( http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Fitness_Reports.pdf ), but after reading through those, I was even more puzzled about a few items. For instance:
Why are there two fitness reports covering the same time period? One of these reports (page 22 of the PDF file) is only a partial report and is comprised of the narrative and personal characteristics sections. It is dated 9 months after Kerry left Vietnam, and does not contain all of the elements which should be on a legal fitness report, even disregarding the fact that the front page is missing. The signature at the bottom of this page purports to be that of LTCDR Elliott, but does not look (to my eye) the same as the other Elliott signatures in the same file (pp. 21 and 24). The report that is supposed ly missing, per the message traffic * is actually there (pp. 23-24). The substance and tenor of the two evaluations, covering the same time period, is completely different.
I am curious about Kerry teaching himself Vietnamese and particpating in a training program for the Vietnamese. I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere. Admittedly not related to medals, but curious. Four months just seems a short amount of time to do all that.
The Swiftie documents appear to be thorough. Some of their accusations, at least, seem to be valid, based on the subsequent backtracking of the Kerry campaign. I would like to see the rest of the accusations/denials/counter-accusations subjected to daylight. That can only be done by a full release of the Navy records. There is only one person who can do that - and he has steadfastly refused to. That in itself lends credence, in my opinion, to the accusations against him.
* There are two messages (p. 15 and p. 29) in the file that pertain to the report, but they don't answer all the questions, either. I believe this question could be best addressed by releasing the official records and inteviewing the people involved.
I don't know why libs feel the need to 'compete' with conseravtive talk radio when they have something so unique in the Daily Show.
Why are there two fitness reports covering the same time period?
There aren't, really. I looked into it while debunking the SBVT's dishonest web page on Kerry's fitness reports, and came to the conclusion that page 22 (personal characteristics, comments, signed by Elliott) was a part of the 14 Dec 68-26 Mar 69 fitness report. The confusion arises because page 24 repeats the same categories. But if you look at page 24, you'll notice that it was originally signed by J W Streuli and dated January 28th, 1969 - long before the period covered by the fitness report ended. I don't know why Streuli also contributed a page to that final fitness report. Maybe he was Kerry's closest supervisor in late December and January.
The substance and tenor of the two evaluations, covering the same time period, is completely different.
The above explanation does away with this problem rather neatly, I think. Streuli's rating system seems to have been stricter than Elliott's - the baseline appears to be "above the majority", from which there are several upward ticks in Kerry's ratings. Also, Kerry hadn't yet performed any of the heroics for which he earned the Bronze Star and the Silver Star, so it's understandable that Streuli's earlier comments are less effusive with praise than Elliott's comments at the end of Kerry's stay in Vietnam.
The Swiftie documents appear to be thorough.
Are we talking about "documents" as in "stuff written by the SBVT"? It seems to me that contemporary Navy records disagree with their version(s) of events early and often.
Some of their accusations, at least, seem to be valid, based on the subsequent backtracking of the Kerry campaign.
All SBVT's main accusations seem to be less than valid. Aside from the aforementioned Navy records, the balance of eyewitnesses appear to disagree with them on any given event.
(I don't consider the Cambodia thing, on which Kerry may have been mistaken, to be one of their main accusations. Rather, it's something on which they've clung onto out of necessity.)
That can only be done by a full release of the Navy records. There is only one person who can do that - and he has steadfastly refused to. That in itself lends credence, in my opinion, to the accusations against him.
It seems to me that the SBVT and their sympathizers refuse to believe any and all Navy records that don't fit their stories, so it's unlikely that releasing more of them will stop them from making accusations. Let me ask you this: does the fact that Bush refuses to release his full Air National Guard records lend credence to the accusations against him?
A "combat V" is never awarded with a Silver Star.
You better inform Maj Gen John Batiste of this fact. He seems to be laboring under a misconception:
FORWARD OPERATING BASE WARHORSE, Iraq, July 20, 2004 -- The 1st Infantry Division Commander, Maj. Gen. John R.S. Batiste, awarded the Silver Star medal with Valor, one of the highest military decorations, to Staff Sgt. Raymond Bittinger, an infantryman from the 2nd Battalion, 2nd Infantry Regiment and attached to the 1st Battalion, 6th Field Artillery, according to 1st Infantry Division officials.
There are more examples, if one cares to look.
(We all understand that the reason a Silver Star isn't supposed to be awarded with valor is because the Silver Star is for valor in the first place, right? Whoever typed up the DD214 was, at worst, guilty of superfluous redundancy.)
Your cut and paste work is getting tired.
On MG Batiste awarding the medal to Bittinger, you are taking the caption in a news bulletin to be a fact. The 1ID press release on the event gives the award. The error is not repeated here or here.
What is happening, other than your brainless cut and paste work from leftwingnut websites, is you are taking an error on the part of a reporter for being proof of something else.
The Silver Star is not now nor has it even been awarded with a "V" device for valor. The Silver Star is only awarded for actions in combat and the only medals awarded with a "V" device are those that can be awarded for non-combat accomplishment.
Ok folks, I confess. It is true that I donated $25 dollars to the Swift Boat Vets for Truth. It
is also true that I was with President Bush last Thursday in Chippewa Falls WI. I was standing in the third row for about three hours. Also... it is true that I have volunteered to work for Bush the last 72 hours before the election. Finally, (GASP!) I donated to the Bush calmpaign. So the NY Times is correct. The Swift Boat Vets are being funded by Bush supporters, who plan to work for the President's election. I can't imagine how they caught on.