Different Limbaugh, Same Hypocrisy In Swift Boat Veterans Attack on Kerry
By Anthony Wade
This week's hypocritical shill for the GOP award goes to David Limbaugh, the lesser-known brother of Rush "Pills" Limbaugh. David is no less a whore for the republicans than Rush, but he usually allows his brother to capture the spotlight.
The topic this week is the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) debacle. Can you sense what side Mr. Limbaugh falls on this discussion? As the truth is coming out about this right-wing funded smear campaign we have seen the discussion in this country correctly pointing out that this is baseless. The GOP, sensing that the debut of the book "Unfit for Command" may be under heralded by the truth, has dispatched David Limbaugh to try and pontificate why the discussion needs to be had. Thus if the story remains as a "credible" news story for debate, than the more harm that can be done to Kerry, which of course is the only purpose this has at all.
In response to Mr. Limbaugh, we see that he begins his article (found here: http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/081004.htm), by asserting that cynicism has led us in this country to dismiss stories that may have relevance. This is an obvious attempt to apply some credibility to the SBVT story. The fact is that this story never had any credibility but let us explore further. Mr. Limbaugh states:
"I'm referring primarily to the public uproar surrounding the new book "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John F. Kerry," in which a group of swift boat officers who served alongside John Kerry in Vietnam tell a devastating story that, if true, annihilates Kerry's image as a war hero."
Here we find an insidious lie as an attempt to justify this story. The people involved with SBVT actually did not serve "alongside" John Kerry in Vietnam. They served in Vietnam, at the same time as Kerry, possibly even in some similar areas but it is a LIE to say that they served "alongside" Kerry. This attempt is so plastic it doesn't pass the smell test. Once one realizes that the people involved with SBVT never actually were with Kerry, one must conclude that the legitimacy is lost. Nice try David.
Not satisfied with lying about the premise, he then decides the best course of action is to minimize the service Kerry did provide by stating:
"Some of the adverse reaction to these claims against Kerry arises from our culture's justifiable elevation of war heroes and the sacrosanct nature of one's honorable military -- especially wartime -- service. You just can't go there."
This is clever on Limbaugh's part as he tries to explain away the "adverse reaction" as a by-product of out culture's desire to elevate war heroes. Considering the lengths the right went to completely discredit Clinton because he did not serve I am surprised at the blase' attitude displayed by Limbaugh here. I am more concerned though that he obviously misses the point. The point is that the man Kerry is running against, not only chose to avoid going to Nam, but recently was confirmed to be AWOL, from his cushy Air National Guard duty (see this link for story about AWOL confirmation: http://www.glcq.com/). Allow me to educate you David. The "adverse reaction" is due to the fact that this group of veterans are nothing more than a front for the Bush campaign. The "adverse reaction" is because questioning a man who still carries shrapnel in his body, when Bush AWOL status has been confirmed by a former Reagan official (see here: http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=172) is not only offensive, it is loathsome. The "adverse reaction" is to people like you, having the nerve to continue to trumpet a story that not only has no legs, but has no soul.
Continuing on in David's article we see he decides to be disingenuous even more:
"But think about it. What if the allegations are true? What if Kerry truly did self-inflict, lie about, or embellish his wounds and other aspects of his reputed heroism? What if he did videotape himself reenacting combat scenes, all with an eye toward his future in politics?"
Well gee Dave, what if any allegation ever made was possibly true? I have read recently that Bush has been taking multiple medications because he is no longer tethered to reality but you don't see me running out to trumpet the argument. Why? Because it is not substantiated. Because you cannot run around making ridiculous accusations without any basis in truth and expect people to lend credibility to them. But I guess you don't understand that do you Dave? According to your argument of "think about it, what if the allegations are true", lets rewrite your paragraph to read:
"But think about it. What if the allegations are true? What if Bush really is on multiple medications to control his outbursts? What if he really did scream at aides backstage after walking out of a press conference "if you can't control those motherf*ckers, I'll find someone who can!" What if he has been controlling the terror alerts to respond to his poll numbers? What if what if what if""
You really want to go down this road David? I don't think so. It is an unfair argument and you know it. Not content though he continues:
"Sure, I would prefer that all elections be decided on the issues, after a thorough debate and adequate public deliberation. But have we become so jaded that a presidential candidate's character is no longer an issue -- even when it may directly bear on how he would perform in office?"
The truth is that David Limbaugh obviously does not want this election to be decided on the issues. If he did, he would not be writing this ridiculous article. Again, trying to muddy the issue he makes a statement basically saying that the SBVT issue is about character, and I agree. However, it is not about Senator Kerry's character until we have vetted the character of the people making the accusations. Lets take a closer look Dave.
According to USA Today, "Public records show that two of [the group's] three main backers are longtime GOP contributors: Bob Perry, a Texas home builder who gave $100,000; and Harlan Crow, a Dallas real estate executive, who gave $25,000." The third major backer is the book's co-author O'Neill, who kicked in $25,000. "The Texas lawyer was closely tied to Bush when he was governor of Texas," USA Today revealed. O'Neill was, indeed, a swift boat veteran, but he never served with Kerry. He did, however, serve the Nixon White House; his job was to counter Kerry's anti-war stand in TV debates.
I want to make sure you got that Dave. The three main backers of this tripe are all big Bush donors. The only one of the three, who even knows what a swift boat looks like, NEVER served with Kerry and he has been attacking Kerry since the Nixon administration. How in the world can you possibly give this any credibility? Not convinced yet, well USA Today was not done as they further point out that NONE of the 13 men who appear in the TV ad even served with Kerry, and of the 254 SBVT members (out of 3500 swift boat sailors who served in Nam), only one actually served with Kerry. The rest of the sailors who served under Kerry all support him and his story. I have constructed a little chart for you so you can digest this better:
Total number of Swift Boat Sailors who served in Vietnam: 3500
Total number of members in SBVT: 254
Subtotal of SBVT that actually served under Kerry: 1
Are you kidding me? How can you honestly continue to lend credibility to this nonsense? You need more convincing Dave? How about the fact that two of the accusers from SBVT had formerly praised Kerry as a Swift Boat commander? Here are the two in question:
Former Lt. Cmdr. George Elliott, Kerry's superior officer, recommended Kerry for the Silver and Bronze Stars by saying that Kerry was "calm, professional and highly courageous in the face of enemy fire." A Washington Post editorial notes that in a 1969 evaluation Mr. Elliott had this to say: 'In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, Lt. J.G. Kerry was unsurpassed."
Another Kerry accuser, Adrian Lonsdale, in 1996 praised Kerry as "among the finest of those swift boat drivers."
Now all of a sudden, they are recanting but you want us to view then as credible? What about Dr. Louis Letson, who states: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury," yet his name does not appear in Kerry's medical records?
David Limbaugh however, is not done yet. He now crosses the lines of sanity to state:
"Despite the hype, the Democrats really don't have much else to go on this year, which is why they don't dare dissociate themselves from Michael Moore, the principal purveyor of the abominable "Bush lied" lie. So the Democrats don't have much standing to complain about "negative" campaigning."
Hmm, sounds like Dave is saying that because an independent filmmaker, who is not financed by anyone on the left, and has actually not endorsed Kerry chose to make a movie exposing Bush, that this excuses the slanderous and unsubstantiated accounts of SBVT. That is a poor rationale at best. Moore has not been sued and no inaccuracies have been found in his film. Additionally, he has not been a top donor to Kerry, or any donor for that matter. The truth is that SBVT is not negative campaigning, it is slander. It is vile. It has no place in a democracy.
David continues:
"Nor does Senator Kerry -- at least with respect to this issue. He is the one who "opened the door" by making his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign. If his honorable service is relevant, so is the possibility of his dishonorable service."
Let me see if I got this straight. You guy goes AWOL from the National Guard. He then campaigns as a "War President". Kerry, having actually been in war, and knows the foolishness of "bring it on!" correctly points out his service to this country. Now, because he has, he has now "opened the door" to ridiculous unfounded accusations? You know better Dave. You state that we should be focused on whether the accusations are true, yet your real goal is to simply continue the discussion, even after the allegations have been repeatedly discredited.
As he tries to wrap up this shrill piece, Limbaugh continues:
"Concerning the veracity of the charges, consider that the "Swiftees" are not GOP mouthpieces -- some are Democrats. They approached Regnery Publishing with their book proposal, not the other way around. Their account is based on their firsthand knowledge -- not hearsay -- and would be admissible in any court proceeding involving these issues."
Please David, you are embarrassing yourself now. It has already been exposed that the backing behind this entire movement is pure GOP. In fact it has been proven that this Kerry smear has been going on for three decades. The fact that some of the SBVT are democrats is unconvincing when you take into consideration how vehemently Kerry opposed the war upon his return from Nam. In speaking the truth about that war, Kerry made a lot of enemies regardless of political party. The fact that three big-time republican operatives would orchestrate this, and then approached Regnery publishing does not remove the smell. I might add that Regnery is self-described as the "Leading Conservative Publisher in America", enough said. Their firsthand knowledge is in fact hearsay, as the best they can say is they were somewhere in the same river, possibly. Only one person actually served under Kerry, compared to the remainder who all side with Kerry. I dare say that most of their accounts would absolutely not be admissible in court.
David Limbaugh then has the gall to finish his piece with this:
"Conversely, if you want to witness a seminar in dirty campaigning, just watch as the DNC goes into action trying to suppress the story and smear those who repeat it -- anything but an airing of the merits of the charges. It's going to be ugly."
You must realize that David Limbaugh knows exactly how hypocritical this is. Only someone with no conscience can accuse one of smearing for attempting to defend against a smear job. The DNC, John Kerry and most clear thinking Americans are sick and tired of this type of campaigning. This story came out and was thoroughly looked into. The results are summarized here:
The three backers of this movement are all large GOP and Bush contributors.
Of the 13 men in the SBVT ad, none of them served under Kerry.
2 members of SBVT are already on record praising Kerry, thus making them liars.
The one SBVT who claimed to be Kerry's treating MD has been proven to be a liar.
Of the 3500 swift boat sailors in Nam, only 254 are in SBVT.
Of the 254 members of SBVT, only one actually served under Kerry.
The rest of the sailors who served under Kerry all support him and contradict the versions of history portrayed by SBVT.
This should be enough to make everyone realize what this really is. It is an attempt by GW Bush and the GOP to smear John Kerry and his service. It is despicable, so much so that, republican Senator John McCain said the SBVT story was "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House to condemn it. Of course, the White House refused, lending further proof that it is not only acceptable but a preferred tactic this election season.
These vile accusers have said many things about Kerry as he patrolled the dangerous waters of Vietnam. I prefer to listen to the men who stand by him, who actually served with him on the swift boat. I prefer to listen to Jim Rassmann who said about Kerry, as Kerry was saving Rassmann's life, "John came up to the bow, and I thought he was going to get killed because he was so exposed." I prefer to listen to crewmate Del Sandusky: "I was there. 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." I prefer to listen to crewmate James Wasser, who issued a direct challenge to the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth": "What boat were you riding on?" he asked. "Because you weren't there--we were."
John Kerry served his country with honor and distinction. He has won three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star, and a Bronze Star. He still carries shrapnel in his body for his sacrifices for this country. I know that bothers the Bushies as they look at their candidate who checked off the box that he did not want to go overseas to Vietnam. I know it bothers them when they see that their candidate has been proven to be AWOL. It bothers them so much that they try to give legs to a story about a bunch of guys who don't like Kerry's post-Nam antiwar stance and got bankrolled by the GOP to smear him. This book is going to come out soon, as they are waiting to get closer to the Election Day, to try and maximize the political damage. Regardless of when they release the book, the truth has already come out. We need to denounce this attack and send these vile creatures back from whatever right-wing rock they crawled out from under.
David Limbaugh knows better. He is just a shill, trying to keep alive a dead story. He is selling hypocrisy. It is the same type of hypocrisy that his brother has been selling for years now. It is the hypocrisy that yells about family values while getting his third divorce. It is the hypocrisy that screams about harsher sentences for drug abusers, while popping oxycontin like Pez. It is the hypocrisy of an AWOL President having the nerve to smear a decorated war hero. David Limbaugh knows better. He is just hoping that you don't.
Anthony Wade is co-administrator of a website devoted to educating the populace to the ongoing lies of President George W. Bush and seeking his removal from office. He is a 36-year-old independent writer from New York with political commentary articles seen on multiple websites. A Christian progressive, and professional counselor, Mr. Wade believes that you can have faith and hold elected officials accountable for lies and excess.
Anthony Wade's Article Archive:
Email Anthony: takebacktheus@gmail.com
