Talk:Swiftboating

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Contents

[edit] Not always poltical

This term appears to be spreading out of the political sphere. In the September, 2006 issue of the ABA Journal, Richard Lang says, "There's no such thing as a patent troll. The term is the equivalent of swift-boating small inventors." (Richard Lang is the patent troll whose company, Burst.com, sued Microsoft and Apple.)

[edit] Parallel discussion

Some of the debate on this discussion page is also taking place on Talk:Swift Vets and POWs for Truth. For exposure to the full discussion, it would be wise to check that page. Crockspot 19:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition and John Kerry

If swiftboating is a word, the definition cannot involve the particular incident with John Kerry. That incident is merely the origin and should not be discussed at length in the entry. Furthermore, this should be a wiktionary entry, not a wikipedia article. If swiftboating is an appropriate article topic, why not the word "smear campaign". And if "smear campaign" is okay, why not combine the two topics? And then the article would have to cover every smear campaign or swiftboating campaign that has ever happened in history from Roman Empire to Soviet Union. And this is obviously too large a topic for an encyclopedia entry. Mere concepts do not deserve Wikipedia entries unless the nature of the concept itself is the subject of extensive debate (such as "reality" and "freedom") and the debate itself is of public interest. If swiftboating is a word, then it needs to be defined according to how it is actually used. The debate over the definition is not of public interest - it is lexicographic minutiae and does not belong in an encylopedia. --146.201.98.89 21:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Just like the word "borking" (also once a neologism describing a type of political attack) can be found in the Wikipedia entry on Robert Bork, perhaps this should best be left under the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth entry (where it already appears). Either way, I agree that any mention of the John Kerry campaign beyond establishing the origin of the word is superfluous to the definition. -- xopher, 29 November 2005

Why isn't this Category: ‪Pejorative political terms instead of Category: ‪Vocabulary and usage stubs? User: Goethean (revert vandalism and obviously spurious example) removed the addition I added for the term i.e. "Swiftboating is American political jargon for character assassination through distortion and innuendo against a beloved lefty icon, as in the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth organization's ads against Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kerry in the 2004 election campaign. It is also used as a dodge by Democrats and lefties when someone on the right points out inconvenient facts about a beloved lefty icon."

Senator John F. Kerry is not a "Beloved Lefty Icon" He is a cousin, both through blood and ritual, to our current President. (POW)

Can the User: Goethean cite an example when someone on the right/republician side of american politics used the term "Swiftboating" against someone on the left/democrat side of american politics? Sirfith 17:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure. here. — goethean ॐ 16:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
That was me (I did not have a userid) and you deleted it as a spurious example.Sirfith 22:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The use of the phrase "beloved lefty icon" is pretty terrible. I'm actually ok with the current wording of the article (I'm the one who added the POV tag) but I'm not sure this is encyclopedia material. Dbt 16:24 Tue Nov 29 2005 (UTC)

Per wikipedia policy, I will be removing the POV tag unless reasons for the tag are provided on the talk page immediately. — goethean ॐ 16:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I just read the policy and my understanding of it was incorrect. Tag removed. My apologies. — dbt 16:37 29 November 2005 (UTC)


"The Swift Boat Veterans For Truth organization's ads ... lied in alleging that Senator Kerry was being untruthful in his representation of his military record." This is not NPOV language, unless it has been clearly an unequivocally established that they did lie (such as through a court case). Even if it is so established it is not encyclopedic language, and if we were to forget that fact it certainly does not belong in the intro. DJ Clayworth 16:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Extensive quotes from other wiki pages (e.g., "Big Lie") should be deleted - that's why we use hyperlinks. If youve got a problem with the text, propose it here. And lets keep it civil, okay? -- S

This definition is all wrong. "Swiftboating" is having former colleagues lie about someone in order to smear them.

If the stupid reversions in this article don't stop, I will be forced to protect the article. Let's remember a few things:

  1. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view applies at all times
  2. The article is supposed to be about the word not John Kerry's career
  3. If you have problems with an article discuss them on the talk page, not by constantly changing the article.

DJ Clayworth 17:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I recommend removing or locking the article. Bamapookie 18:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Recommendation seconded (if that means anything). A link to this article was posted on the Democratic Underground, so the stupid edit war will just continue unabated. It's the same thing that happened with the "Fitzmas" article.Jinxmchue 18:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
It wasn't Democratic Underground, it was Talking Points Memo. Eliot 18:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
It was both, actually. Link. And from that DU thread it's obvious that at least one person on DU was responsible for some of the vandalism. As I said, the same thing happened with the "Fitzmas" article when they linked to it.Jinxmchue 04:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Judging by the ongoing edit war over the content of this article, I'm putting up the Controversial Topic boilerplate. We'll see how long it stays up. --Aeki 18:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected because numerous anonymous contributors insist on using the page to argue about John Kerry's war record. DJ Clayworth 18:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me that the current problem stems from a lack of seperation between the definition of the word and the initial usage. Right or wrong, the term emerged because of what happened to John Kerry in 2004. This is a simple fact, not an opinon which warrents discussion. The discussion page for an article about the Swiftboat Veterans, however, might be appropriate for the current line of discussion. --Cgranade 18:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

What many of the right wing media refused to point out or at best obscured is the fact the not one of the "swiftboat veterans" actually served with John Kerry. Yes they were in the same command, but they never sever on John Kerry's boat or were near him when the events in question occurred.

[edit] Searching for NPOV ways to discuss Swiftboating

I agree with Cgranade. Wikipedia already has articles on Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth, John_ Kerry_military_service_controversy, John_O'Neill_(Vietnam_veteran), Roy_Hoffmann, and even Stolen_Honor. Let's send interested readers there for background. We might also refer readers to similarly pejorative expressions that emerged in different contexts

  • "demonizing the opposition" (coined in 2003 by Paul Krugman to describe Karl Rove's methods) [1]
  • "politics of personal destruction" (frequently used during Clinton's impeachment hearings) [2]
  • 'Borking" Originated from ferocious attacks by Democrats on Robert Bork, 1987

Even more examples

Sorry I forgot to sign my earlier comment (the first part of this list) betsythedevine 21:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Since the page is protected, it gives us an opportunity to discuss what should happen, and perhaps even create a temporary copy at Talk:Swiftboating/Scratch to propose to replace the current protected copy. One thing I would like to see is what you suggest: a table of links to similar terms (aimed at both sides) as well as a table of links to articles describing the events that led to the terms being coined. Obviousally, such events would be subject to NPOV issues, but that isn't for this page to concern itself with. The term was coined in response to a percieved event, and it doesn't matter to the definition of the term whether or not the perception of the event was accurate or not. --Cgranade 20:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


It Seems to me that the word is not about John Kerry, but is used to describe very harsh (perhaps to the point of lying, or slander) political attacks. I think the definition should reflect that, with a quick sentance or two describing the origin. Perhaps a link to John Kerry or Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

Seems fair. The term originated as a reference to the (percieved or real) tactic used against Kerry, but has since become a term in its own right, just as "-gate" has become a generic suffix for any political scandal ("Memogate" anyone?). Whether or not Watergate was a "real scandal" has no bearing upon the modern usage of the "-gate" suffix, and the situation is similar here. In both the "-gate" and Swiftboating cases, a historical note is indeed in order, but the primary issue is the definition of the term. --Cgranade 22:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


PlameGate, anyone? Fitzmas, anyone? Watergate, anyone?

[edit] Incoming Raw Story link

This article has now been linked by Raw Story as well. Expect a new deluge of POV pushers. Eliot 20:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protected?

Why are we protecting this article? When g-mail linked to Horn of Plenty this weekend, the article got a lot of questionable editing done to it, the worst of which was very quickly reverted. It isn't clear to me that the danger of having a vandalized article up for a few seconds is worth givng the impression that Wikipedia actually does not allow newcomers to edit articles. If all of the editing done over the period of time that this article is being mentioned on various websites is terrible, we can revert it all back to this version. What's the concern? Jkelly 21:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The article was not 'vandalised for a few seconds', it was being vandalised every few seconds, for a very long time. Which means that anyone coming to Wikipedia for the first time because of a link to that article was getting a high probability of seeing something quite apallingly biased, inaccurate, or in some cases obscene. That's not the first impression we want them to have. The second point is that we want to discourage the idea that Wikipedia is a place to come and argue about politics, and to change article so they reflect your point of view. That's what was happening. If we stop them doing it maybe they will go and do something else instead. DJ Clayworth 22:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What Kerry's medals really mean to Republicans

Neither pro-Kerry nor anti-Kerry partisans see the greater context. Perhaps Wikipedia should. The Swiftboat PAC's accusations about Kerry's medals are eseentially true. But he could only have gotten all those phony medals if he was being protected. As a member of the Yale-Bones-CIA club he certainly was. The "pro-communist" Kerry was just playing a part. His opposition to the Bones-Bush regime is every bit as phony to this day. Background. -- BigPicture 29 November.

That is a blatent lie. The people who ACTUALLY SERVED with Kerry support Kerry's right to his metals. And so do all but one of the soldiers who received medals at the same time as Kerry, the only exception being one of the Swift Boat liars, who was furthering the Bush campaign. (Now there is another suggested term of Wikipedia: Swift Boat Liars.) This incident had the stink of Karl Rove all over it.

As a matter of fact, the only SBVT member who was actually present at the action for which Kerry won the Silver Star, Larry Clayton Lee, believes Kerry earned his medal. So does EVERY single other person who was present. See more at the SBVT page. --EECEE 17:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement of Disappointment

I am very disappointed in my fellow liberals, most particularly those of whom have decided to respond to the vandalism wrought by readers of Talking Points Memo in kind. This does nothing to encourage our cause, but only reflects upon the entirety of the liberal movement as being petty and immature. I wish to work with others on this issue to create a new version of Swiftboating that is NPOV- and yes, that excludes liberal-minded commentary as well. This is part of how Wikipedia works, and who are we to overturn that at our whim? Please, cease the vandalism and counterproductive commentary. --Cgranade 22:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Kerry's medals are every bit deserved as any. It is only the not-so-Swiftboaters who say otherwise. DuBose 14:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contention that "Swiftboating" is used by Democrats only

Can someone add an example of Swiftboating being used by Republican/Rightwinger. i.e. Mary Mapes Swiftboated George W. Bush with unauthenticated documents from the TANG. Sirfith 22:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Uhm, hello, this is a matter of dispute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.105.43.46 (talk • contribs).

There have certainly been cases of Republicans complaining about Democrats' alleged use of politically-motivated character assassination. In 2003, Conservative columnist David Brooks denounced what he saw as a hatred-based critique of President Bush, saying "The core threat to democracy is not in the White House, it's the haters themselves." [3] A more recent example would be allegations that Tom DeLay is the victim of Ronnie Earle's vendetta. But Republicans would be unlikely to use the term "swiftboating" to refer (pejoratively) to politically-motivated character assassination, because the official Republican position is that the Swift Boat veterans were nobly-motivated patriots who were telling the literal truth about John Kerry. betsythedevine 03:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with the definition that "swiftboating" to refer (pejoratively) to politically-motivated character assassination. I would like for it to be stated that this defintion of the term is used by the political left much as the term Moonbat is used by the political right.Sirfith 16:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More to the definition

Whenever I've heard the term used it's with the connation of flipping a strength and a weakness around. Attacking an opponent in an area that's perceived as their strongest, most unassailable spot.


Well, that's an intersting take on it. The way I have heard it used in conversation is that it means lying and distorting the truth about an individual, ie, it's a verb that is defined as "to smear, to character assassinate." For instance, in conversations that I participated in and/or heard during the 04 election about these tactics as they were used against Senator Kerry, the attackers doing the smearing were sometimes referred to as "The SMEARBoat Veterans Against Kerry."


Both comments above are correct, but they don't get to the purpose of the tactic. The reason to swiftboat your political enemy is to put him on the defensive - wasting time and energy defending himself in areas he thought were secure. Additionally, it serves to put negative information in front of the public. Swiftboating is designed to play on the media's desire for new and different information (dirt), while at the same time planting a seed of doubt with voters. The truthfulness of the charges is almost irrelevant, and any accuser with almost any relationship to the swiftboating target can be propped up to shout them. It's about volume, not accuracy. - zeeeej

[edit] The word PROMINENCE is misspelled

UnregisteredUUser 02:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I trust that will be fixed when we unlock the page. Jkelly 03:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Too mild

“Swiftboating is a newly coined political term for exaggeration and embellishment to the point of lying in a public relations assault on a political opponent.”

If anything, this definition of “swiftboating” or “swiftboated” is too mild. It should also include the acts of taking statements, and half-truths out of context and spinning them into complete lies to discredit a political candidate.DuBose 04:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ad Hominem

I'm mildly surprised that no one has mentioned that this is an ad hominem attack. Whether it is "ad hominem abusive" or some new category ... that I can't answer. It does seem appropriate to cite it (and other political pejoratives) from that section of Wikipedia.

As far as freezing the page - I think that is a reasonable thing to do. I was slightly amazed at the number of edits being made in an incredible short period of time. However, it is vandalism like this that makes me want to the consider the requirement of logging in (accountability).

Suggestion for new lead: "Swiftboating" is a newly-coined political term that describes a public relations assault which uses exaggeration and hyperbole, bordering on libel and slander, to attack personal character.

Why? Because "political opponent" suggests that this only happens in a political campaign -- whereas, it is possible to "swiftboat" a judicial or cabinet nominee, for example. Also, the fact that it is "an attack" de facto makes this something one does to "an opponent." -- Kegill 06:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Surely (at least under the US system) a judicial or cabinet nominee can also be a 'political opponent'. DJ Clayworth 17:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

This article should probably be merged into dirty tricks Raul654 10:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. — goethean ॐ 15:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Looking at that article suggests that a new section should be added thereto referring to and summarising this article; simply merging the whole article would swamp the current content. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection

I've unprotected the page. Let's see if we can all behave like adults. DJ Clayworth 17:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Perfect Representation of what Wiki has become

This article is the perfect representation of what Wikipedia has become- a ridiculously one-sided joke, posing as "NPOV". The whole article is an attack on a group of veterans who felt that the whole story was not being told; In effect, under the phony definition put forth on this page (the real definition of "swiftboating" is pointing out the truth about a habitual liar), you are doing what you have condemned. No doubt if someone came along to fix this article, it would be "reverted" as POV, even though it is this article that is junk. As soon as those of you on the loony left stop inserting your point of view as fair and unbiased and stop treating your ridiculous edits as God-given fact (yes,I saw the DUmp thread yesterday encouraging DUmmies to edit this post), we can actually get to the truth (yes, instead of "NPOV", as truth should always be the only concern, even if it offends some left wing ninny). Until then, Wikipedia will always be a joke.--WinOne4TheGipper 19:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Your statement “(the real definition of "swiftboating" is pointing out the truth about a habitual liar)” is exactly what swiftboating is about. You have no proof that Kerry lied… just half-truths taken out of context and political spin. DuBose 14:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
This article is about the term "swiftboating" itself, which incontrovertably IS used as a pejorative. If you want to point out SBVT members' motives in speaking out, there is a page devoted to the group with plenty of that sort of info. --EECEE 17:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear SBVT lurkers : "Still waiting for any of the eggheads to come up with a lie in the Swifties' various presentations," eh? Sure, first try the SBVT article right here at Wikipedia. Then try this website: [4] . Though I'm pretty sure you know where the lies are anyway. -- Proud USAF

[edit] Unexplained revert

I recently tried to make some improvements to the article along the lines that have been discussed, adding a generic definition of the term and cutting back on some of the repetition from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. They were reverted without comment by User:131.107.0.86. Rather than start another edit war, I thought I'd ask this user and anyone else to discuss the proposed edits. Thanks. Eliot 19:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Examples

The examples used here are politically motivated and should be removed. They include a link to a letter to the editor that call people chickenhawks, a link to discussions at the democratic underground which post an article from daily kos (both liberal blogs), and other exmaples that serve no purpose other that to push some agenda. CS Ch.{{{ch}}}

The blog ones are a little dodgy, agreed. Jkelly 04:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Can I remove them? Do you want me to go one by one and explain why they should be removed? CS Ch.{{{ch}}}

It would be much better if there was discussion by more people than you and I before anything gets removed. Why not copy some of the ones you think are the worst here to this Talk page and ask for comments? Jkelly 04:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


Just because a word is used in an opinion piece, blog, article, or letter to the editor does not mean it needs to be cited as an example. All of the examples are there because of their political point of view. They are completely subjective and inappropriate to the page. All of them should be removed. I'll go over a couple of them.

"Character assassination is the Karl Rove tactic of choice, eagerly mimicked by his media surrogates, whenever the White House is confronted by a critic who challenges it on matters of war. The Swift Boating is especially vicious if the critic has more battle scars than a president who connived to serve stateside and a vice president who had "other priorities" during Vietnam." –Frank Rich in the August 21, 2005 New York Times[3]

This is purely about Karl Rove, and the opinion writers thoughts on Karl Rove's tactics. It offers no meaning or insight to swiftboating.

"Swiftboating Cindy Sheehan"[6] "Swiftboating the Crazies"[8] "Swiftboating again"[9] "Dean is being swiftboated."[10] "I do think the race offered one good opportunity for out-of-state Dems and Progressives, and that was to calmly write to newspapers and try to talk to receptive radio hosts about the swiftboating of the candidate."[11] "I’m glad the efforts to swiftboat Paul Hackett have been exposed for what they are."[12]

These are all blog entries which may or may not contain the word swiftboating. They serve no purpose other than to push a political agenda.

Swiftboat ('swift bOt); transitive verb: (1) To accuse a public figure of questionable conduct without the benefit of physical evidence, usually by an entity informally associated with a person or entity benefiting from the accusation. Noun: (2) An unsubstantiated charge made against a public figure or organization, usually made by a proxy entity. See also: Smear, hatchet job, character assassination. (3) An organization dedicated to swiftboating on behalf of a respectable organization. (4) archaic: a type of boat used by the United States Navy to patrol the shores of Vietnam from 1965 to 1970; see also PCF. [14]

This comes from some password protected forum. Seeing the word is defined above, I see no reason for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.216.160.75 (talk • contribs).

Sources such as the New York Times editorial should remain, blogs and message boards probably not so much. Eliot 05:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I completely disagree. What point does that quote serve? What do you get from reading it? It is simply an attack on Karl Rove that happens to use the word swiftboating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.216.160.75 (talk • contribs).

Frank Rich using the word in a New York Times editorial is perhaps the foundation for this neologism even having an article. Jkelly 05:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The word has been around much longer than a few months. Just because someone decided to create this article after reading his column does not make the quote anymore meaningful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.216.160.75 (talk • contribs).

So is the consensus that the New York Times is always acceptable on Wikipedia, even if it is a quote from an editorial written by a partisan that has nothing to do with the Wiki article? What a sad time for Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.216.160.75 (talk • contribs).

Given that the article is about the usage of a new word, the fact that it was used by an editorialist for the Times is a particularly good argument that the word is actually part of American political language. It is not obvious to me why the content is problematic. Because the word has connotations of maliciousness, I suspect that the vast majority of examples that we might list are going to involve one person's negative opinion of another. Your statement that the example has nothing to do with the article is confusing to me. Rich is unlikely to comment on the Wikipedia article; we have the quote in as an example of how the expression is used. Jkelly 21:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Why does it matter if some editorialist for the Times used the word? Its an editorial. I think the Fox News article should stay because it is being used in an actual news article. Who cares if it was used in editorial? Same goes for the Bill O'Reilly quote. Who cares if Bill O'Reilly said the word? Partisans use the word all the time. The biggest problem of the quote is the first sentence, which has absolutely nothing to do with swiftboating. It is solely there to push someones viewpoint. I don't know how anyone can argue differently.

"Character assassination is the Karl Rove tactic of choice, eagerly mimicked by his media surrogates, whenever the White House is confronted by a critic who challenges it on matters of war.


I've added news headlines and one news quotation - all from LexisNexis (feel free to find the online links). Reordered by date - with date first. Why? So we can see progression and/or asosciation with news event (Murtha, for example).

Don't understand the angst about the Karl Rove NYT quote -- positions swiftboating in the history of political character assassination. --Kegill 11:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CBS forged memos as Swiftboating

I removed the link to RatherBiased.com in the 'examples of swiftboating' list because a search of the site doesn't show anybody using this term to describe the incident with the forged memos. I certainly encourage anybody to find a new link where someone does describe the memo incident as swiftboating, though. Eliot 21:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] bolding

The excessive bolding is ugly and distracting and should be removed. — goethean ॐ 17:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

This whole article is in serious bereach of NPOV. Only arguments supporting the Kerry point of view are cited. No serious attempt is made to look at the arguments made by the Swift Boat Veterans which ended up being accepted by a large minority of the American public if not the majority. There have been a number of e-mails at the help desk about the tone and a number of incidents. I have added the NPOV tags accordingly. Capitalistroadster 03:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is not meant to support or attack the points of view either of the Swift Boat vets or the Kerry campaign; those arguments should be restricted to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and John Kerry articles. This article should exclusively talk about the attack ad tactics first used by the Swift Boat vets, which I don't think requires giving a full treatment to either side of that particular dispute. It should be possible to agree on the basic set of facts, after all: that they used loosely documented but explosive charges; that they were an ostensibly independent group which nonetheless was clearly acting to aid Bush's campaign; that their effort was directed much more to publicizing their charges than to proving them; and so forth.
I encourage you to remove any of what you see as pro-Kerry bias, rather than trying to balance it with the pro-SwiftBoat angle and thus clog up the article with something that doesn't belong here. I think it is possible to neutrally assess the tactics used in this case without clinging to the POV of either camp. Eliot 15:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
No serious attempt is made to look at the arguments made by the Swift Boat Veterans which ended up being accepted by a large minority of the American public if not the majority.
I love that. "People believed our lies, so they're not lies anymore!" Thanks for the laugh. — goethean ॐ 16:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
All of the Swiftboat charges have been debunked. -Smedley Hirkum 03:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
That is utter nonsense. While some of the others have stood up better than others, none has been disproven, and some have been proven beyond dispute. 02:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


Actually, that statement is incorrect on both counts. [5] However, as has been pointed out more than once here, the purpose of this article is neither to prove nor disprove SBVT's claims. If you have anything to add that would "prove" any one of SBVT's claims, the place to add it would be the SBVT article. Feel free. --EECEE 03:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swiftboating article still has many problems

This article still has many problems.

The definition of the word has not been separated from the underlying politics of its origin.

In my view, the members of the organization "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" believed that they were telling a true story which was not being told, and which needed to be told. Others may dispute the truth of their assertions, but I thought that they were sincere. Of course, they understood the political implications of what they were saying, but the truth was what was important, and then let the chips fall where they may.

Of course, many others believe differently about what the organization said. In many cases, I think people are unable to separate truth from its consequences. I contend that it should be possible to talk about whether what the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" said was actually true, without consideration of the political fallout. But others seem unable to do this. They seem to believe that since the consequences were negative for John Kerry, then the material presented must be false, or an "ad hominem" attack. This is not necessarily true, and in any case, what are current political campaigns today if they are not "ad hominem" attacks? Everything is about the person.

My understanding of what "swiftboating" means as a word, goes something like "presenting personal and perhaps unverifiable statements to the public about the background of a public figure to discredit his (or her) truthfulness and reputation".

This definition (or whatever is ultimately decided) must be separated from the issue of whether or not that is actually what happened in this case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.37.32.254 (talk • contribs).

But that's not how the word is used in the press. It's used as a synonym for Smear campaign. — goethean ॐ 21:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
If so, then I don't think we will ever get agreement on the definition. To me, smear campaign means propagating falsehoods in order to defame. So, for those that believe that what SBVFT presented was indeed truthful (at least mostly), this meaning for "swiftboating" can not be agreed. The term becomes self-contradicting (perhaps that is what is actually intended by its use). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.37.32.254 (talk • contribs).
It's actually not that difficult to understand. John Kerry is widely seen to have been smeared by the Swiftboaters. Subsequently, the term "swiftboating" began to be used for "smearing". Then, a Wikipedia article was written documenting this usage. Your feelings about the swiftboaters are not going to change how the term "swiftboating" is currently used in the English language. — goethean ॐ 22:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I attempted to amend the article to reflect some of this discussion, but my edit was swiftly (haha) reverted to a form that I think violates NPOV. In my real life, I'm one of the people who uses "swiftboating" pejoratively, but I think the article needs to do better on explaining the opposite POV. I've no wish to start a revert fight, but if others would check out what I wrote I'd be grateful. It would also be great to have at least one quote from a conservative commentator in the external links. betsythedevine 21:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Betsy, I was the one who reverted your edit. I believe that the article is currently agnostic about the validity of the swift-boaters' claims, which is as it should be. As such, I thought your edit was unhelpful because it added (what amounts to) defense of the claims, which invites a rebuttal, which will cause this article to balloon up with content which properly belongs on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth page.
In particular, I thought your paragraph 'Arguably, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth believed that their portrayal of John Kerry was, in fact, spontaneous and truthful. Those who share this opinion would have little motivation to use the term "swiftboating" in a pejorative way.' was adding unasked-for POV to the article. Nothing in the article states that the SBVets lied or were 'unspontaneous,' or that swiftboating must be untrue (or at least, it shouldn't do so). I also don't find that the article uses it as a pejorative -- perhaps it is only inheriting that characterization from the negative connotations of 'ad hominem' and 'mud slinging', but I certainly don't think that we need to add a specific disclaimer that some people think character assassination is awful and some people think it's called for. That's outside the scope of the article. Again, if you find value judgments in the text of the article I hope you will remove them.
It would be good to have a quote from a conservative in the links, but only if 'the shoe fits' -- we don't need a link to someone explaining why 'swiftboating' is good or why the swift boaters were telling the truth, as these are two claims that are tangential to the article. Also keep in mind that this term is new and still raw in the American political psyche -- if it does catch on, I'm sure that in 10 years you will find conservatives and liberals alike using it. And if it doesn't, this article shouldn't be here anyway. Eliot 16:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)



Hi all - I have edited to reflect what I think is a more NPOV, and also for accuracy. For example, as someone pointed out, the targets of sb'ing are not always purely political figures (as with judicial nominees), so I used the word "public" figures. Also the SBVT campaign itself was not even organized for the benefit of a political force, so I said one is "usually resulting in a benefit" to an established political force. I changed what I see as a POV term, "mudslinging," to the more neutral "attack." Finally, the term is not just being used by liberal writers. Note the outside links to Fox News, which repeats and then describes the term without judgment, and Bill O'Reilly, who has no problem seeing it equated with a smear tactic. So I just said it is being used by "some writers and commentators." --EECEE 19:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


"Swiftboating" is beginning to be used by homeless people, Vietnam and other veterans and other homeless, to describe such incidents as getting fired from a job, thrown out of a business, harrassed while panhandling, or various other situations. It describes setbacks created by lies or other social attacks, such as bad recommendations on employment. It has thus expanded and broadened beyond the rich and famous to ordinary people. I have also heard the term used about incidents concerning non-public people who are not connected to homelessness or veterans. Michael C. Emmert


Mike Emmert 18:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please give usage examples for any changes to the definition

Hi--I just reverted an edit by somebody who wanted to "correct" the POV of this article by giving the definition "Swiftboating is American political "slang" for a coordinated attempt by a group or individual to prevent a public figure from misrepresenting their record to the public and attempting to prevent that person from reaping the benefits of any distortion or dishonest portrayal." The many quotations that show the media using the verb "swiftboating" don't reflect even one case of the word used in this way. But even if a few cases of someone using the word non-pejoratively could be found, the common use of "swiftboating" (or "swiftboated") is pejorative rather than neutral. For example, here's Krugman in the NYT today: http://select.nytimes.com/2006/05/29/opinion/29krugman.html betsythedevine 11:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me suggest some minor changes/clarification to the definition-

Swiftboating has become American political jargon for an ad hominem attack against a public figure, coordinated by an independent or pseudo-independent group, usually resulting in a benefit to an established political force. Specifically, this form of attack is controversial, easily repeatable, and difficult to verify or disprove because it is generally based on personal feelings or recollections.

The name comes from the strong objections to the portrayal of Presidential candidate John Kerry's military service in Vietnam, and subsequent antiwar activities, by the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth organization. Since the charges were all from personal testimonies of the Swift Boat vets and not capable of verification by some independent authority, they were disputed vehemently by Kerry supporters. However, they were disseminated widely and had negative effects on the Kerry campaign, which led to the rapid adoption by Democrats and others of the term "swiftboating" as being a controversial but highly effective form of "smear campaign".

Swiftboating frequently refers to a campaign that uses viral marketing techniques to sell the allegations. By using credible-sounding sources to make sensational and difficult-to-disprove accusations against an opponent, the campaign leverages media tendencies to focus on a controversial story. Mostly used as a pejorative, the term has gained currency among some writers and commentators. Its appropriateness as a description of political debate has been questioned by some conservative commentators, since it assumes that the Swift Boat vets were insincere and partisan in their opposition to Mr. Kerry's candidacy, which is itself unverifiable and possibly unfair to those men.

  • Here are four that have been deemed by some to not qualify as WP:RS, [6][7][8][9]. I can provide many more examples from posts at Conservative Underground if you like. The same rough definition has been used there for almost two years. (I'm most familiar with CU, but I believe FreeRepublic and a few other conservative websites have also been using it that way.) Crockspot 15:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Crockspot. I saw that quote from Bailey - I think he said elsewhere that he liked the term. So it is an example of a conservative using the term in what we assume is a nonpejorative way - unfortunately he doesn't really explain why he thinks it is not pejorative. I wonder if you or anybody else can figure out a way to present that usage without extrapolating (there's that word again) too much. --EECEE 05:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that we're going to have to wait until a reporter asks Bailey (or someone else) what exactly they mean, and then actually print it in an article. (I have a feeling the reporter asked Bailey, but did not include his answer in the article.) Then we will have something to work with that meets WP:RS. Crockspot 13:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, I noticed that Cafe Press T-shirts are used as a source in the Fitzmas article, and no one is getting their panties in a bunch over that. Perhaps I should drop Gamaliel a note about it. Crockspot 21:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Here are some examples from 2005 of the term in use on Conservative Underground. Note that the last one, by Terry Boone himself, occurs after the other examples, so the term was in use by us before he "defined" it. [15][16][17][18][19][20][21] Crockspot 18:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC) additional comment: note that the vintage of these posts is about the same as the sources for the "official" definition quoted in the article. Crockspot 18:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully this is even more neutral in tone and will be less controversial. (Except, of course, to those who despise either the Swift Boat vets or John Kerry and want the definition to reflect some level of their own bias.)


Hi. First, I think the current article is pretty neutral, and to the point.
Your suggested language looks pretty neutral overall, with a couple of points. First, I'm not sure changing the current language to say the name stems from somebody's objections to something makes it less neutral...instead, it implies a POV about the source of the name.
Second, I don't think the claims were simply "disputed by Kerry supporters" - they were in fact disputed by objective evidence. Maybe just saying they were mostly (I don't think all) based on personal testimony and not capable of independent verification is sufficient.
Also, I would leave off the last part of the last sentence, as it is pretty subjective to say what the use of the term assumes...especially as it really isn't evident in the rest of the article. Another poster at the SBVT talk page suggested a definition used by some conservatives, and that was included in the article. It wasn't included here because the intro seemed to be locked...but that might be the simplest approach.
Thanks for putting the ideas out there, though. --EECEE 04:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Conservatives' objection to the use of this term is information that belongs in this article

To Bestsythedevine: Hi. Saw your comment over at the SBVT talk page, and your edit here. However, the CNN opinion piece you link to doesn't really question the use of the term because it makes implications about the SB vets' honesty or sincerity - in fact the only time he really mentions the term itself he simply refers to it as a "hate term." So I think that is the most accurate way to describe the viewpoint expressed by this conservative commentator - if you have others, please put 'em in. Thanks. --EECEE 22:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi EECEE--Tyrrell's article makes it clear that he considers Democrats' use of "swiftboating" or "Swift Boat tactics" an "attack on the Swift Boat Veterans" and "slurs against the Swifties. You're right that he isn't explicit about why pejorative use of the term "attacks" or "slurs" Swifties and their claims--he thinks (and so do I) that his meaning is clear. The nature and strength of conservative objections to this term is made clear by the many people have already tried to add some kind of clear statement of the Swifties' POV to this article--a situation quite understated when reduced to "at least one conservative commentator has described it as a "hate term". More examples:
  • " Its appropriateness as a description of political debate has been questioned by some conservative commentators, since it assumes that the Swift Boat vets were insincere and partisan in their opposition to Mr. Kerry's candidacy, which is itself unverifiable and possibly unfair to those men." (From this talk page, a suggested change to the article that you also opposed.)
  • "This article is the perfect representation of what Wikipedia has become- a ridiculously one-sided joke, posing as "NPOV". The whole article is an attack on a group of veterans who felt that the whole story was not being told; In effect, under the phony definition put forth on this page (the real definition of "swiftboating" is pointing out the truth about a habitual liar), you are doing what you have condemned." (From this talk page)
  • ""Wikipedia" fancies itself as the modern arbiter of the meaning of words. For some time, "Swiftboating" and "Swiftboated" have been the subject of heated debate among Wiki's contributors. The current definition is pretty loaded with terms implying lies, distortions, half-truths, etc., etc." (Swiftvets.com discussion, Feb 2006, [22]
The information that conservatives strongly, strongly object to using "swiftboating" as a term of abuse belongs in this article--it shouldn't keep getting deleted or watered down. Tyrrell's article is the most encyclopedia-worthy source I've seen on this. Surely the same kind of reasonable inference that people have used here to tease out the many (negative) implications of the term "swiftboating" can also be extended to expressing the other side's POV. Surely a single clear sentence describing their objection is not excessive.betsythedevine 03:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Betsy. Thanks for posting. I agree that there is obviously plenty of sentiment out there on the conservative side. It is just hard finding an encyclopedic source that documents that sentiment. Tyrell's article says a lot of things that make you infer his own sentiment, but he mostly bashes Kerry and simply describes the term itself as a "hate term." So in my view that is the proper way to present his opinion. If people find more sources that are acceptable to Wiki, they should include them, but not extrapolate based on their own inferences. In my view. --EECEE 04:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I guess I should have checked the article first. I see there have been a couple of edits along the way. I think it looks okay the way it is now, except the cite format is a little odd. Let's see if Wiki thinks it's "encyclopedic" enough. --EECEE 05:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that Tyrrell's piece is mostly Kerry-bashing, and incoherent besides. Thanks for your patience and hard work on this page.betsythedevine 12:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions. It is an interesting exercise, yes? --EECEE 06:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Conservatives do not all walk in lockstep. While some conservatives may not use the term "swiftboat", I, and the conservatives I know, use the term regularly to mean "the act of exposing lies and deceit". This definition is fairly common in the conservative blogosphere, however, you will not find few non-blog sources for this. (And by the WP:RS rules, that means it doesn't exist.) For example, at Conservative Underground, we have been using that definition since the 2004 general election. Crockspot 18:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[b]Neutrality and Accuracy[/b] I think the key point about Swiftboating is that the allegations made by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were a collection of lies and half-truths by very reliable sources that were swiftly and easily debunked shortly after they were initially made. That the lies were debunked made absolutely no difference with regard to their effectiveness, because the Swiftboaters continued to repeat the lies anyway, and the conservative media repeated them. But the real genius behind Swiftboating was that it exploited the lazy and simpleminded approach to NPOV used by the mainstream media, which tend to believe that if you mention both sides of an argument, you have your bases covered with regardto NPOV. This does not take into account the fact that one side might be completely correct and the other side completely wrong. For example, if the Republicans maintained that the sky's blue appearance is caused by sunlight being filtered through water vapor in the air, and the Democrats maintained that it was paint being sprayed onto the back side of the atmosphere by a celestial paint sprayer, the media would handle this dispute by mentioning the theories of both parties. They might run a few articles covering the merciless debunking the Democrats would get for coming up with such poppycock, but in all articles in which the dispute was a side element, they would content themselves with just mentioning the two competing theories. This would create, in the minds of those who hadn't bothered to educate themselves on the whole sky color conflict, the idea that there was a legitimate dispute about the color of the sky, rather than arrant lies offered by one side and a totally deserved debunking by the other. This false equivalence was exactly what politicoes who backed the Swiftboaters were aiming at when they trotted out their lies.The dispute over war records stopped being between a guy who had served in combat in Vietnam, with enemy soldiers shooting at him, and a guy who patrolled the skies of San Padre Island, Texas, when he wasn't out on political campaigns, and became a dispute between two guys with "suspect" service records. The media were complete tools of the Republicans in that respect. And if Wikipedia were to allow Republican/conservative posters to misconstrue the nature of the Swiftboat story, it will be a complete tool, too. --Pat Powers (patpowers1995@yahoo.com).

No offence intended, but your statement is itself so full of lies and half truths that I can't take seriously any comments you have on NPOV. It is common to say that the SBVT claims were all "debunked", but I have seen no proof of it. Have you read "Unfit for Command"? Crockspot 15:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I feel compelled to add further comment. I lost a family member in a helicopter crash in Vietnam in 1970, near FSB Ripcord. I've spent the last five years researching the crash, gathering accounts from about twenty different men who had either direct or second hand knowledge of the event. I also had access to official records. What I found was that, in the minute details of their accounts, not one man's story jived completely with any others, or with the official records. But I did find that the general essence of their stories matched, even with the official record. When you ask a man to remember an event that occurred 35 years ago, and that event occurred in a war zone, where one's sense of time is distorted even at the time, you are going to get minor discrepancies in the details. In my own researh, after discovering other events that occurred in the various units around the same time, I was able to account for these discrepancies as details being confused with other events, and just bad recollection. While they all told slightly different tales, the important story was all the same. About 250 highly decorated Vietnam Vets participated with the SBVT, and I am not surprised that some of the details of their accounts turned out to be wrong. "Debunkers" have found these discrepancies, and use them to discredit the entire SBVT story. However, I have seen no "debunking" that does not fall into this "minute detail" category. The main assertions of "Unfit for Command" have not been disproven. Crockspot 17:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Crockspot--You should notice that the edit above, signed by Pat Powers, was made by an anonymous IP whose only contribution to Wikipedia, ever, was that particular comment. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.219.84.174 ) So please don't judge this article, or Wikipedia in general, based on that comment! An "encyclopedia-quality" source for people's using Swiftboating in a positive way wouldn't have to be, say, a politician or commentator using it that way. It could just be a newspaper article mentioning that others are using it that way. I feel confident, given the heat of this disagreement, that we will soon be able to find such a source and include it with this article. When we do, this article will be better and more informative. The truth or falsehood of any or all claims by or about the Swifties has absolutely zip to do with this article--that stuff belongs over in the SBVT article.betsythedevine 18:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
When were the charges debunked? If they were, I missed it. Could someone please direct me to the debunking? Thanks. Valtam 16:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Excellent question! As a Wiki admin said just two days ago in a SBVT edit summary, "You don't need sources for the obvious." BTW, Bush lied, and is a war criminal too. Crockspot 16:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Once again, Crockspot, I'll direct you to Eric Rassmussen's most excellent online review of UFC: http://homepage.mac.com/chinesemac/kerry_medals/truth.html --EECEE 08:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm having trouble keeping up with all the comments, so this is the first time I am seeing your link to this article. I'm in the process of reading it now, but something I just read really bothers me: "For all other incidents discussed in Unfit for Command, we have Navy records and Kerry's journal to use for documentation in a rebuttal. In this case, however, the Navy records have not yet been found (all we have is a brief entry in Kerry's medical records) and Tour of Duty does not tell us what the journal says about this, if anything." Big problem here, Kerry's journal and his complete military records have never been released to anyone except Brinkley, whos neutrality is in question. Like I said, I am only just reading this piece, but so far, I am unimpressed. I can't wait to see how he defends Kerry's treasonous activities after his return to CONUS. From my own personal contacts with Swifties and other unassociated Vietnam Vets, it was Kerry's activities with VVAW, and his meetings with North Vietnamese officials DURING official negotiations, his outright false speech to the Congress, and VVAW's fabrication of stories from phony vets that really turned them against him. Crockspot 18:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Crockspot. I went back to the site to see what that quote is referring to, and it is the firs PH incident. It is true that no after action reports or other records describing the mission have been discovered as yet, but those types of records are public records that are part of the command history and not personnel records, and can be obtained by anybody searching the military archives. It isn't up to Kerry to "release" them if they exist, and it's hardly his fault that he doesn't have them to release.
Of course Kerry's complete military and medical military records have been released to three separate news organizations in addition to Brinkley; all three have said there is little in those records that is different from what Kerry has already made public.
If SBVT had confined itself to only criticizing Kerry's antiwar activities, it would be a matter of opinion fairly expressed in the public discourse. However, they chose to attack his military record as well, and so are rightly open to criticism for their many false claims. --EECEE 18:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I have more or less finished the article (skimmed through some of part I), and I am still not impressed. Part I is all still debatable until Kerry releases his journal, and all his own records. Part II does not even address the points made in Unfit For Command. Have you even read Unfit? All the article does is say that those things did happen in Vietnam. No one disputes that in at least isolated incidents, those things occurred. None of the allegations made by Unfit For Command are even addressed in Part II, NONE. And as I said before, Part II is the real meat of the bone that SBVT has to pick with John Kerry. As for the three news organizations, I'm sorry, but I can't take their word for it. Dan Rather, and recently Reuters, have been exposed as not being above pushing false information. I want to see the records. If you have not read Unfit For Command, it is fairly pointless to continue this debate until you do. Crockspot 18:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


Hello Crockspot. First of all, I had forgotten to point out that Kerry's journal has evidently been made available to the Boston Globe, as excerpts have been printed in various articles as well as their biography of Kerry. As to his records being made available to the general public, the privacy protected records such as his fitness reports and medical records are not at issue (except that a doctor whose signature does not appear on the sickbay report claims to have treated him for a wound). The records that would shed the most light on SBVT's claims are obtainable either through FOIA (for instance, medal citations and recommendations) or by a search of the appropriate military archuive for public declassified documents (such as after action reports, personnel casualty reports, transmission reports, unit summaries, etc.). Go to it.
You see in the introduction to ER's review he says he focuses mainly on the military service questions, with "a few comments" about the antiwar activities. The antiwar activities might in your view be "the real meat of the bone to pick with John Kerry," but the fact is that most of the TV ads, newspaper, radio, and TV interviews, and pronouncements by SBVT, as well as the first half of UFC make claims about his military service. That is a fact.
Yes, I have read UFC. It is full of lies, distortions, and just plain bad information. And despite John O'Neill's claim that Jerome Corsi was NOT the coauthor of the book, but "simply acted as an editor," the fact is that entire passages from the second half of the book are lifted almost word for word from Corsi's screeds at wintersoldier.com . Of course aside from being bareley readable they are full of bad information, but that is another topic.
Finally, while Dan Rather and Reuters may or may not be guilty of "pushing false information," the fact is that THREE different, competing news organizations were given full access to the records. They were perfectly willing to tell us the news about Kerry's unflattering college transcripts. They also mentioned the additional records that were included, like the first page of the Streuhli fitness report. But as I say, if you really want to see the records, submit a FOIA request and go on down and search the military archives. --EECEE 19:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
But how do we know how thorough the THREE different news organizations were, when they looked at the records? And how do we know they were given full, and not partial, access? As far as I know, a FOIA request won't allow the release of the records, unless Kerry signs a Form 180. This has been a controversial issue for years - if the records would quickly and easily clear up any questions, then why has Kerry never made them public? Or are there things in the records he doesn't want to reveal? Valtam 15:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
You will never know how "thorough" anyone has ever been about anything, including SBVT, Wikipedia, or the Pope, without eyeballing the original sources yourself. The fact is that these three organizations are in competition with one another and each has everything to gain by being more thorough than the other. We know that they were given full access because the actual signed SF 180s granting that access have been published online. See the link at the article.


A FOIA request will "allow" release of everything except military personnel records, such as fitness reports, and those are not in controversy. Almost everything else that is in controversy, including medal citations and recommendations, assignments, after action reports, personnel casualty reports, command histories, unit summaries, transmissions, etc., can be obtained either through a FOIA request or just going down and looking through the archives. Try it and then ask questions.
Kerry has made his records public, including his privacy protected records that cannot be obtained through a FOIA request. Try looking at them at the Findlaw site linked through the article.
This is "controversial" because partisan hacks have nothing else to put out there. They count on the general lack of curiosity of the public in considering what the actual facts might be. --EECEE 18:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


Well, I was going to reply to your comment, Crockspot, but when the Wikipedia database was locked just now, I read up on a lot of the comments here and on the SBVT page. I skimmed the supposed debunking linked to in the SBVT comments, and focused on the "Christmas in Cambodia" story. It doesn't look like those charges were debunked... Since you follow this stuff, Crockspot, do you know if Kerry ever cleared up the questions about his military record, either by releasing all his records, or something similar? Thanks. Valtam 20:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
It depends on what you mean about SBVT's "Christmas in Cambodia" claims. If you're talking about what John O'Neill wrote in "Unfit for Command," that account is pretty much a rehash of bits from Boston Globe articles and interviews, and the BG Kerry biography. The only direct Kerry quote is an excerpt from his 1986 floor speech, taken out of context and misreprsented. More on that below. Then O'Neill goes on to mangle the account from Kerry's journal to insist that Kerry claimed he was somehow sent into Cambodia on Christmas Eve when in fact he was more than 50 miles away in Sa Dec.
If O'Neill had bothered to read the actual lengthy journal entry included in "Tour of Duty," he would know that Kerry never claimed to have been ordered into Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968. He didn't claim it later, either, not even in his 1986 floor speech. Rather, he was on a patrol out of Sa Dec going toward the Cambodian border on Christmas Eve, and was in fact patrolling with two PBRs along or close to the border - this is confirmed by at least two of his crewmen. The boat was ambushed at some point - the Christmas truce ambush is confirmed in the fitness report written by George Elliott. Kerry believed at the time that he had inadvertantly crossed over into Cambodia. Then he returned to Sa Dec. According to his biographer, Douglas Brinkley, he didn't go on missions to Cambodia until the following January and February - in fact if you read the Feb. 12-13 spot report, you will see that his boat and another boat were inserting SEALs right at the border.--EECEE 08:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


In a word, no. He never authorized a COMPLETE release of his records, just the ones he wanted to release. His misrecollection of who was the President when he was in Cambodia that Christmas is a common memory problem when people are trying to recollect something that happened so long ago. There's a comment of mine somewhere on this page that illustrates that. All the "debunking" seems to fall into a similar category, ie., people getting some of the minor details wrong, because it happened so long ago. Crockspot 20:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


I think you mean Kerry never authorized complete public access to his records. He actually did allow Brinkley and three news organizations complete unrestricted access to his records. The news organizations said there was almost nothing different from what he had already posted at his website in 2004. I agree with you that he probably telescoped a few things in his recollection when he recounted things in later years, and that that is a pretty common thing. --EECEE 08:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


Except that when he described the event in 1986, he said "I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me." Seared!!1!, I tell you. At that point, 18 years after the fact, he emphatically claimed to be in Cambodia on Christmas 1968. (And of course, he made the same claim in the 1979 Boston Herald article - only a decade after the fact...) So it wasn't a "memory problem" in the 70s or 80s... The "debunking" article says that he could have been in Cambodia at the time, not that he was. So that charge seems to stand. Valtam 21:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Well first of all, let's consider what he actually said was "seared" into his memory (from the John Kerry Military Service Controversy article):
For example, on March 27, 1986, in arguing against United States aid to the Nicaraguan Contras, Kerry made a speech to the Senate that, among other things, touched on the Vietnam war:
Mr. President, how quickly do we forget? How quickly do we forget? No one wanted to widen the war in Vietnam, We heard that, Let me remind you of what we said during that period of time.
[Kerry then set forth more than a dozen statements of American leaders with respect to the Vietnam war. He concluded the summary with the following:]
Finally, President Nixon, 1970. "In cooperation with the armed forces of South Vietnam, attacks are being launched this week to clear out major enemy sanctuaries on the Cambodian-Vietnam border."
Mr. President, I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia.
I have that memory which is seared-seared-in me, that says to me, before we send another generation into harm's way we have a responsibility in the U.S. Senate to go the last step, to make the best effort possible in order to avoid that kind of conflict. Mr. President, good intentions are not enough to keep us out of harm's way.
Quite different, isn't it? Do you actually think a memory of being in Cambodia when he wasn't supposed to be is a memory that tells him that before we send more kids into harm's way we should go the last step, to make the best effort possible to avoid "that kind of conflict"?
Kerry started out by saying we had forgotten how quickly the war in VN widened, and went on to quote more than a dozen claims that the war wasn't being widened, when it was. Then he ends with Nixon's statement that troops were first being sent into Cambodia in 1970, when he remembers sitting in a gunboat in Cambodia in 1968. It was the last example in a long list of examples of a war that widened in increments.
Finally, whether a "debunking" article says he "could" have been in Cambodia or not does not change the fact that in 1968 he believed he had inadvertantly crossed the border, and he still believed it in 1986. It is a fact that he was patrolling at or near the border at the time ... thus, the only objectively provable fact is that under the circumstances he certainly "could" have crossed over.
The "Christmas in Cambodia" question is discussed at length at the "military service controversy" page. I suggest you check it out if you have an interest. --EECEE 08:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Edits

I have reverted the last few edits back to an earlier version of the article.

Specifically, I removed the new(er) paragraph attributing the term to "Kerry supporters" and explaining how "such people" define the term. First, I don't think Bill O'Reilly is a Kerry supporter, but as seen in the links, he has used the term. As have plenty of others who are not necessarily to be considered "such people." In addition, the term is no longer used simply in the context of Kerry's candidacy in the last election, so it makes little difference who the person using the term supports or doesn't support.

Also, to say the term isn't used by those who think the SBVTers were right is like saying that the term "McCarthyism" isn't used by those who think McCarthy was right. It not only goes without saying, it once again casts the term in the context of the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the event or element that gave rise to the term. Swiftboating is a tactic, period.

I put back the earlier paragraph describing the source of the term during the 2004 election, which seems to me sufficient and accurate. I also put back the more neutral language that simply says many commentators use the term as a pejorative, and at least one conservative commentator has described its frequent negative use as a hate term.

Okay, if anyone has any thoughts on my edits, let's discuss. Thanks. --EECEE 04:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added the following alternate definition and source to both this and the SBVT articles: "Some conservatives, however, have defined the term to mean: "Exposing lies, deceit, fraud or deceitful/fraudulent person(s)." [23]" I also left a note for Gamaliel that this same source is used to source the Fitzmas article. We'll see what happens. Crockspot 21:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debunkings

Let me help you out. Here's a nice debunking from the Washington Post

It establishes that Kerry served in Vietnam, in a swift boat, was fired upon by Vietcong and got some shrapnel wounds from a grenade explosion, and that he rescued a crewmember who had fallen in the river due to a mine explosion. The Swiftboaters claim he was not under fire at the time,but the guy he rescued and a lieutenant on the boat nearest Kerry both concur that there was enemy fire, along with the official record.

Here's another: A link to Eric Rasmussen's very long, very well researched, very detailed debunking of the Swiftboater's claims.

Now, unless you can come up with some equally specific, well-researched rebuttals, you really have nothing to argue with. The people who were members of SBVT were lying, it is as simple as that. And the essence of Swiftboating is that the media thinks that reporting on both sides of a controversy equals balance, even if one side has been vey thoroughly debunked. Well, it doesn't, ESPECIALLY in the case of Wikipedia. If I were to go to the Wikipedia listing on "hippopotamus" and insist that it was a desert-dwelling lizard with a duck bill, six legs and a long fluffy tail, I would get my head slapped around, rhetorically speaking, and deservedly so. But I suppose if I were to get a few dozen friends to post in support of my position, it would be a controvery, and Wikipedia must report it as such, including a balanced presentation of the duck-billed lizard theory of hippos. This is what conservatives are doing to Wikipedia with regard to "swiftboating." It is not good for Wikipedia's reputation. Pat Powers 05:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

As I commented above, I find that, in the absence of full disclosure of Kerry's journal, and the full release of his records, Part I is still all debatable. Part II does not even address a single point made by Unfit For Command, which I am assuming that you have not even read. Part II is really what sunk Kerry, in the eyes of most veterans. Crockspot 18:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I will add here the points made by Unfit For Command that I think are the real things that sunk Kerry's swiftboat, and have yet to be addressed, let alone "debunked":
          • That Kerry committed treason by meeting with NV negotiators in Paris, while official negotiations were in progress, and then advocated the NV positions with the US govt., ie., withdrawal with no assurance of the the release of our POWs.
          • That the VVAW suborned fraudulant testiomy, and Kerry knew this.
          • That Kerry's testimony, based upon these fraudulant statements, left America with the impression that all soldiers in Vietnam were committing these atrocities.Crockspot 18:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Crockspot. I have responded to some of these questions over at the SBVT discussion page. I would add though, why would the release of Kerry's journal in itself disprove anything that SBVT claims? Aside from the fact that they've already accused him of making stuff up in his journal, it would still only express his point of view. On the other hand, William Schachte's and Jack Chenowith's journals could certainly shed some light on things (Chenowith for instance claiming he wrote about the March 13 incident), but they have refused to release them.
As to your bullet points, I suggest you look up the definition of "treason" in the federal statutes and its treatment in caselaw, and use some other source besides Jerry Corsi's screeds to determine what Kerry did or didn't do in Paris. As to VVAW "suborning" fraudulent testimony, I assume you are referring to the Winter Soldier investigation. I'll refer you to the WSI article [24] for more information on that; suffice it to say that not a single claim presented by those testifying has been disproven. As to what "impression" was left by Kerry's testimony, that is a matter of perception and opinion - a point that SBVT was unwilling to stick to. --EECEE 19:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
(I added a note to the top of this and the SBVT page with a link to the other page. I'm having trouble keeping track, and the casual observer certainly will.) Giving aid and comfort to the enemy, undermining official negotiations, and then advocating the enemy's position certainly qualify. Kerry does not deny that he made the trip and the meeting, and his advocacy of their positions is public record. I believe the only reason he was never charged it that America wanted to be done with Vietnam by that time. I don't know how old you are, but everyone had a pretty bad taste left in their mouth, and they wanted to be done with it. There is also a question about his discharge. It's been a while since I read on it, but I believe he had his discharge "redone" during the Carter admin, and there is speculation that his original discharge was less than "honorable". The background on that has not been disclosed either.Crockspot 19:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, I suggest you research the actual requirements under federal statute and caselaw. And do original research on what was going on in Paris and about Kerry's visit. You can believe all you want about why he was never charged with treason, but to be blunt that seems like a copout for not doing your own research. I am old enough to remember the war as my brother served two tours while I was a teenager.
The "question about his discharge" is a bunch of hooey made up by Kerry-haters who simply couldn't come up with anything else and who depended on the ignorance of their readers when it came to the regulations applicable to reserve commissions. And do you think for a minute if Kerry had actually been threatened with an other than honorable discharge because of his political activities he would have remained silent about it, much less hidden it? It would have been an outrage, deserving of public exposure. And not a single other VVAW member has suggested that they were threatened with, much less received, other than honorable discharges for their activities.
Please Crockspot, do your own research. Don't just take SBVT garbage at face value. --EECEE 20:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Original research would be easier to do if the records were still available. [25]. Do you know of another archive of these documents? All references I can find point back to dead links on Kerry's website. But here are two articles from the NYSun. [26] [27] Also a blog discussion which is well quoted. [28] Is the NYSun on the Swift Boat payroll? Crockspot 20:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Crockspot, the records are available here: [29] This link is also included at in the various SBVT/Kerry articles.
Of course there are plenty of SBVT-friendly blog pieces out there, but Beldar, aside from being highly partisan, is not the most accurate analyst. And Thomas Lipscomb, besides having misrepresented himself as a Pulitzer "nominee," consistently takes things out of context, cherry picks his "facts" and quotes, and generally distorts things to suit whatever point he wishes to make. These two articles are -typically - full of bad information. The fact is that in 1972, Kerry was transferred routinely to the Standby Reserve; this would be for an indefinite period unless he specified. Sometime in 1978, Kerry may have requested that he be discharged from the Standby Reserve, or there was an administrative reduction in force (several posters at blogs have stated that that was the case, and they share the exact same discharge date with Kerry). And as far as Lipscomb being shocked that a "board" was convened for Kerry's 1978 discharge, he should have dones some basic research. It is a well-known fact that no board is convened, the language is standard boilerplate - the Navy periodically reviews members of the Standby Reserve to see if they are still needed. A board or other official review is only conducted if an officer objects to discharge. You can look all of this up yourself, or call the Navy and ask them. But really, it would be more appropriate to discuss any of these problems at length in a Wiki article. This is a discussion board about an article defining "swiftboating."
So again, I encourage you to do your own research rather than relying on second and third hand speculation by partisan hacks. --EECEE 21:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Good links - I agree that ER's site is especially well researched. But remember, if you are writing an article about a term that is still being defined in popular culture, it is perfectly reasonable to include all the different ways that people define it. As long as you can back it up with real examples. In my opinion, anyway. --EECEE 08:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Edits to "conservative definition"

Personally, I think the last couple of paragraphs have gotten way too long and involved for this article. The article doesn't discuss how various liberal groups describe the term, nor how many coffee mugs are sold with a liberal definition. I think it would be sufficient to simply say various conservatives have described the term as a "hate term" and defined it as " exposing lies, etc." and add the links. --EECEE 06:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the number of sentences is quite small for the "Vets for Truth" and SBVT definition. I don't think they need to be in separate paragraphs necessarily. The liberal definition is getting top billing with lots of external links. I don't think it's out of order to give a few sentences to the documented groups that use a different definition. --Tbeatty 09:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The primary, common use of the word is what appears first. It is a comparatively short summary of the usage, and rather than describing each source, simply links to examples of that usage. If the alternate description of the "conservative" use of that wordwere to conform to the overall style of the article, it would do the same. It doesn't. --EECEE 17:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Tbeatty, re your last edit. The Army Times doesn't say it is the group's definition. It says it is a definition posted at its website:
But he’s clearly borrowed from its playbook. The Web site’s lead image is an artist’s rendering of Murtha, with Kerry, long-haired and wearing his combat fatigues in full post-Vietnam protest mode, drawn right behind him. Down the page, there’s a definition of “swiftboating” — “exposing the lies, deceit and fraud of self-glorifying public officials or candidates for office who exaggerate their military service by lying about their feats of heroism and combat wounds.”
Of course the website actually posts an article with that definition, so the sentence was actually correct before you edited it. See my comments at the SBVT talk page as well. --EECEE 02:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It is notable enough of a defintion to be covered by Army Times and I believe that Web Site usage would qualifiy it as a primary source for a groups views. Sampley does not claim to be it's originator so it is merely covered in his article. --Tbeatty 05:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The definition wasn't "covered" by the Army Times, the group was. The article noted that the group posted a definition of a term on its website. That is the accurate way to present it here, in my view. --EECEE 20:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Spectator article that was used to reference a part that EECEE removed speaks to the conservative definition that we have been waiting for a reliable source on. I have added the article to the list us "use of" articles, so that we do not lose that source in the shuffle. - Crockspot 15:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Crockspot. Actually, the Spectator excerpt was a columnist's opinion on what the word "should" mean, and it was pretty general. I removed it from the primary definition, but don't see a problem with linking to the article elsewhere. As there seem to be more and more variations on the "conservative" take on the term, maybe editors should start thinking in terms of summarizing the alternate view - in the same sort of way the primary definition is a summary. Just a thought. --EECEE 17:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The summary I have put forward several times, and is what I and the people I know who use it mean, is "speaking the truth", which is more or less the common denominator in all of the con definitions. The Spectator piece is not enough for me, but as I said before, in time, we will get more reliable sources for the alternat def. Especially as we head into the next two election cycles. I am patient. - Crockspot 17:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of term "misleading"

Hi Crockspot. I had originally edited a sentence stating as a fact that many of the charges were unverifiable and misleading. I thought the latter term was conclusionary and not objectively proveable, as opposed to the fact that many charges were unverifiable. However, it looks like this person subsequently included it later in the paragraph, where it merely talks about the reputation of swiftboating. Personally, I think that is acceptable, because it is objectively proveable that swiftboating does have such a reputation. --EECEE 18:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It gets back to the question of "according to who?". There should be an attribution. - Crockspot 19:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/w/i/Talk%7ESwiftboating_48e9.html"