Doing right by the Swift Boat Veterans
Greg Mueller responds to my post yesterday about the misuse of the term “Swift-Boating:”
Hi Michelle — I just saw the post you had on me about SBVT and I deserved the ding. Bad use of term on my part — I was trying to make the point that they still had it out for Republicans given how sour they still are over their view that the Swift Boat Vets prevented the Presidency from them and John Kerry. I was trying to say that they were doing their version — i.e. “trying” to do what they consider to be “Swift Boating.” After I said it, I realized it was not comunicating that way and dropped it in subsequent interviews.
Obviously, the difference is stark — SBVT were heroes once again coming forward to tell the truth and blow the whistle on Kerry. The New York Times used anonymous sources to have yet another “Jason Blair moment,” no evidence, no truth, just, as Rush would say, a drive by hit job.
We were so proud and honored to have played a role in the Swift Boat Vets for Truth, working side by side so many true American heroes. John O’Neill, Bill Franke and I have grown to be terrific friends as I have with the other true heroes that were involved in the effort.
Very poor communication on my part. I made the comment to my friend Jonathan Martin at The Politico early in the AM and realized it was not reading as I meant it. He did not misquote me. He is a very good reporter and always quotes me accurately. In subsequent interviews throughout the day the following statement was distributed and used in a number of stories.
“I think this story backfires because, put simply, this is a bad gossip column. There is no evidence of anything in it.
“It was a poor and revealing attempt by the New York Times to try and smear McCain at a time when he is starting to define Obama as an inexperienced liberal, so the New York Times takes up for Obama’s defense. If anything, this helps energize conservatives to come to McCain’s aide in beating back attacks by The New York Times and other liberal media outlets.
“Rather than coming from MoveOn.org or some other Soros bankrolled liberal group, The New York Times has launched the first real negative attack of the general election phase of the campaign. Certainly, the Times cannot complain about a negative general election campaign in upcoming articles and editorials since they have fired the first shot.”
Greg Mueller
Thanks, Greg.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Swift Boat Vets
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
Founding Bloggers
» Did The New York Times Just Tell Glenn Reynolds To “STFU”?Doug Ross @ Journal
» BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Boston Globe Climate Beclownment SpectacularDoug Ross @ Journal
» 'Hope is fading fast' --- the T-ShirtRadio Equalizer
» Media Matters Admits Rush Didn't Make Key Racist RemarksDoug Ross @ Journal
» The CRU Climate Scam In 90 SecondsHot Air
» 3rd quarter GDP 2.8%, not 3.5%Mudville Gazette
» Threatswatch: US Embassy Denies Secret Eikenberry Talks With Taliban
Yet another stark difference between true journalists and the MSM. When you make a mistake, admit it, and correct it.
The New York Times may start the negativity, which doesn’t surprise me, but they will be out front critisizing everyone else for negative comments, except those directed at the GOP.
That reply showed a lot of class.
Bullseye.
Wouldn’t it be refreshing for other journalists to come forth like Greg and admit when they made a mistake and take any lumps coming to them?
Good job, Greg.
Words matter. It shows his character that Greg Mueller was willing to retract his terminology.
Have any NYT reporters ever done that (willingly?)
Not only that, but he didn’t retract it angrily. He did it in a friendly and professional manner, with thanks to Michelle for pointing the problem out.
Many thanks to Greg. He’s a stand up guy.
Greg Mueller, now thats a class act, I heard yesterday, I believe it may have been on Fox, that it is a good thing this came out now so it could not be used in the general election against him so maybe it is a good thing for McCain to have to respond to this issue now and not 7 or 8 months from now when it will have been buried and forgotten.
Still thinking on that opinion.
I think it should be noted that this is the difference between a Journalist and someone who passes op-ed pieces off as news. While I would like that to be true, it really does not seem that way.
This is just the difference between someone who has the ability to admit when they are wrong (Even if inadvertently as this apparently was) and the majority of others in a profession who seem to feel, much like most politicians, that whatever they do is justified no matter what.
If this is a right vs left issue, it should not be. Unfortunately, many things are not as they should be right now.
Greg Mueller: Stand up guy!
FCO? FCO?
Call me skeptic, BM. But, I think this NYT piece is just a sample of what is to come. This was merely a shot across the bow to get zeroed in on their target for the next several months. It was a given that the NYT would turn on him, once he became the established frontrunner.
I suspect it is just a matter of the frequency with which we will see the others be lobbed from the NYT.
But, I digress. This thread is supposed to be about Greg Mueller and how he did the right thing by correcting himself on the “swiftboating” term. And, what he did to correct himself is admirable.
I’m glad Mueller set the record straight, but I hope he and others are more circumspect in using the term in the future. Afterall, it is – as Rush calls it – the “drive-by media”, not caring what indiscriminate damage it does. No need to give em any ammo.
It takes a big man to admit he was wrong. All is forgiven Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Mueller is a stand up guy. It takes me back to last night’s debate when Hillary would refuse that she made a mistake.
sure did.
Instead of the term Swiftboating, the new pejorative should be Kerryed. As in, all Vietnam Veterans and their families were Kerryed when Kerry went to Congress on TV and accused them all of being the latest Imperial Slaughter Squad, “in a manner reminiscent of Ghengis Khan”.
That man is a walking, talking pejorative term.
A sure sign of true professionals. Thanks Michelle, thanks Greg.
Yup – and also to go on and immediately correct himself as Mueller did.
Isn’t it funny how whistle blowers who go public with damaging information about companies such as ENRON are treated like heroes while the SBVT are treated like scum for blowing the whistle on John “Freaking Fabulous” Kerry. Mr. Kerry got his comeuppance and deservedly so. Let’s hope that O’Bummer gets called out on his lack of an explanation of why he should suddenly “qualify” for the presidency. Or will his Affirmative Action cred (like that of his wife’s) make him an automatic shoe in?
Greg owned up, good. The NYT has always been a scumbag, commie rag, givin. John McCrazy= even bigger scumbag,couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy. Now let him go out there and brag about NYT endorsement.
Not to defend everything about the NYTimes article about McCain, but it’s turning out that some of its charges are true and some of McCain’s denials are false.
This seems to be the MM dictionary of conservative English
Switboating: telling the truth about Democrats
Lying: saying something negative about a conservative (note: no relation to truth value) synonyms: moonbatting, treason, being unhinged.
It is important that we on the right don’t allow the term “swiftboating” to become a negative term, even though the Republican nominee for President thinks it is. In fact, I think a response from McCain would be helpful in keeping this the positive historical event that it was. Surely, he must see that if the swiftboater’s campaign did change the outcome of the last presidential election it is not only a good thing, it is a GREAT thing.
Do I need to keep telling everyone to:
I G N O R E
H I M
Well, it looks to me like lgm might actually be right there, though it might simply be an honest mistake made due to haste. We’ll see. His editorializing is unwarranted, however.
Note however, that they make a large claim that is completely unproven and unproveable, then when McCain essentially says, “didn’t it anything,” they say, “aha, but you did do something,” even though it doesn’t have much to do with the original charge.
This NYT attack is laughable since they and their lefty comrades perpetrated a deliberate campaign over the last year to neutalize Romney and Guliani, the best and most logical candidates to defeat them. They knew that McCain would be probematic for conservatives but not for them should he pull out a miraculous win in the general election come November. Now that McCain is the presumptive nominee, they are free to spend the next eight months systematically taking him apart. It will be child’s play, and a horrible spectacle to boot.
The left now has a very shrewd strategy, one very difficult for conservative (even RINO) Republicans to defeat. Exploiting McCain-Feingold while simultaneously getting their propaganda agents in full swing, Soros & Co. can virtually eliminate enemy candidates at will, even to the point of custom selecting their opponents.
Criminal and evil, but effective, unfortunately. Bad news for conservatives, worse news for America.
The NY Times piece was intended to deflect attention from Michelle Obama. Her anti-American comments were beginning to affect the national news and the best thing the Times could do was change the subject. This was the classic Clinton tactic.
As far as the Swift Boat vets, they are real heros. I know one of them, and his story is a real inspiration — unlike Kerry.
I just wonder if lgm thinks the swifties were lying, or if they were telling the truth about Kerry?
lgm – have you ever read either “To Set the Record Straight” or “Unfit for Command”?
If not, how can you say swiftboating is “telling the truth about Democrats”? It was all about one man – who speared an entire generation. It wasn’t about smearing the Democrats.
Sorry, soap – I couldn’t ignore that any longer. It still makes my blood boil.
LGM
Thanks for the link.Good find on your part.
The deposition proves he is lying and he lied in the press conference about Paxson.
I would sure like to know how many people get the use of a corporate jet and then say they did not get any compensation for their efforts.
(It costs more $10,000 an hour to hire a private jet)McCain’s use of the jet probably exceeded 100k and to think Paxson did not expect access is a joke.
Polite golf clap for Mr. Mueller.
You are joking!
NOBODY jumped on the Swift Boat men more than McCain, in defense of Hanoi John!
THAT should tell you something, if NOTHING else does.
One thing to remember about the SBVT. Everyone said that they lied about John Kerry except for one person.
The only person that did NOT say that they were lying…
Was John F. Kerry.
RetFireman (above):
First, you’re wrong on the facts:
Second, if Kerry would have been correct to ignore the lying swiftboaters on principle. It would not have made their charges any more true. We just saw with McCain that the pol denying charges does not make them false.