Swift kicks to the Swift Boat Liars for Bush

The Swift Boat Liars for Bush campaign is starting to fall apart at what seems almost like e-speed.  The fact that Kerry struck back publicly helps immensely.  Our sad press corps doesn't like to dig for facts on things like this themselves.  But when the opposing candidate hits back, they at least still feel like they have to respond to the "he said, she said" aspect of the story.

The pro-Kerry part of the blogosphere has been pretty ecstatic over Kerry's counter-attack:

Over the last week or so, a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been attacking me. Of course, this group isn’t interested in the truth – and they’re not telling the truth. They didn’t even exist until I won the nomination for president.

But here’s what you really need to know about them.  They’re funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They’re a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won’t denounce what they’re up to tells you everything you need to know—he wants them to do his dirty work.

Thirty years ago, official Navy reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam.

As firefighters you risk your lives everyday. You know what it’s like to see the truth in the moment. You’re proud of what you’ve done—and so am I.

Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: “Bring it on.”

Hey, didn't I use that line before?  Well, I believe I did: Rehash the Vietnam War? Bring It On! 03/06/04.  I even interpreted those words into Kerry's mouth before: Kerry to Bush on Vietnam: Brang It On! 04/26/04.  In fact, thisweek is not the first time Kerry's has struck back like this.  In that post, I quoted an AP story by the usually blatantly anti-Kerry Nedra Pickler, Kerry shot back when Bush had surrogates raise questions about his antiwar protests:

"If George Bush wants to ask me questions about that through his surrogates, he owes America an explanation about whether or not he showed up for duty in the National Guard. Prove it. That's what we ought to have," Kerry told NBC News in an interview. "I'm not going to stand around and let them play games."

Did they think he was not going to do that in August when he was already doing it in April?  Of course, this is the same crew that thought there were WMDs in Iraq and the people there would be tossing flowers into the path of our troops...

One of the big mysteries of all this to me has been why the Bush campaign wanted to push this particular issue.  They seized on Michael Moore's almost off-hand crack about Bush as a "deserter" at a Wesley Clark event to try to bash Clark.

As I wrote back in January (Is Bush a Deserter (1) 01/31/04), the Big Pundits pompously scolded Clark for not distancing himself from that comment.

Steve Soto has this explanation for why the Bush campaign is doing something that seems so self-destructive.  I mean, how could George AWOL Bush expect to compete with Kerry over who was a bigger war hero?  Soto's explanation (Kerry Finally Fights Back - Bush Lets Others Do His "Dirty Work" For Him 08/19/04:

Bush is trying to ignore by having his front groups make an issue out of one of Kerry’s strengths: his military record as compared to Bush’s lack of one. But this is a typical [Karl] Rove [Bush's main political adviser] tactic: find a perceived weakness of Bush’s and a strength of your opponent, then find a way to hit early and aggressively on it to put the opponent on the defensive explaining themselves instead of hammering Bush for his weakness. It will work every time until the opponent goes on the attack himself forcefully and points out Bush’s weakness and Bush’s intention to change the subject away from the real issues.

Courtesy of Daily Kos (Swift Boat Liars exposed 08/20/04), I see the New York Times has a big story on this crew of Republican sleaze-slingers:  Friendly Fire: The Birth of an Anti-Kerry Ad 08/20/04.

Also via Kos:  Chris Matthews, to whom major hackery is not unknown, acted like a real journalist for a few minutes with Michelle Malkin, who seems to be running hard to displace Mad Annie Coulter as the favorite female lunatic of the Radical Right, by jamming her hard on an anti-Kerry charge she just made up like they do on Oxycontin radio.  Bill O'Reilly, who also often seems to be a candidate for a straight-jacket, even found the Swift Boat Liars for Bush too much to stomach: The Swift Boat blues 08/16/04.  Man, when Bill O'Reilly thinks some rightwinger is being a hack, that's sinking pretty low.

I see the David Neiwert also give Matthews credit for acting like "a real journalist" with Malkin: Fooling With Facts 08/19/04.

Steve Soto also has links on The Swifties Financial Backing 08/19/04.

Steve Gilliard's blog service provider seems to be freaking out a bit, so I can't get the exact post address.  But his The clock is running, Bush 08/20/04 is brimming with satisfaction at Kerry's counter-punch, which he had predicted a couple of days ago.  (Gilliard, a New Yorker, also thinks the labor demonstrations against Bush at the Republican convention may be very impressive, as he explains in that post.)

Gilliard really is happy over Kerry punch-back:  Fools doing Dirty Work 08/19/04:

It's not 2000, and John Kerry is neither John McCain nor Al Gore. You step to him, he's gonna stepright back. Move On laid the groundwork, and now people are going to ask questions. Too much [expletive deleted] was hanging in the air for no one to ask questions. Once again, Kerry calls Bush a coward. Bush nailed himself. He should have condemned the ad. And he didn't. Dumb as a box of rocks. Now, Bush is outed as a liar and a coward. Not just once, but twice.

Idiot. What is Karl Rove thinking? That Kerry can be punked and will do nothing? Wrong man, wrong year.

Josh Marshall explains the Bush dynasty's "bitch-slap" politics (08/19/04) and chortles over Bush's less than Top-Gun-like response to Kerry's counter (also 08/19/04).

But Jeffrey Dubner at TAPPED thinks Kerry's campaign needs to be more aggressive still on this issue: Engaging the Enemy 08/19/04.