Good question…

...in a comment from Craig R. Harmon. A couple of 'em, in fact.

Just wondering: what's your definition of Swiftboating? It should be something like "alledging (sic) that one's stated service to one's country wasn't exactly what it has been stated to have been", no?

To the second question, Craig, well, no.

But that's not fair, is it. You're as entitled to your definition of what swiftboating "should" be as I am, I suppose, so let's focus on your first question, and see if that doesn't largely deal the second as well. It's likely the term will be used around here more frequently with so many Iraq war vets lining up as Democratic Congressional candidates next year, so refining my thoughts on the matter should be a valuable exercise.

While the term derives from a specific series of attacks on John Kerry during the 2004 Presidential campaign, I look at is as a more generalized phenomenon. For instance, I would argue that Max Cleland was swiftboated before swiftboating was named. More recently, Paul Hackett was a victim of the phenomenon when Jean Schmidt suggested that he had exaggerated his service as a Marine Corps officer in Iraq, a suggestion which proved to be false.

In essence, I see swiftboating as an attack that involves a public official or candidate for public office who points toward their military service as a particular qualification for office. They may claim that their service demonstrates a particular commitment to, and sometimes an expertise in, national security measures, or that it demonstrates a particular qualities of leadership and judgment, especially in times of war or national emergency.

The second element would be an attacker who questions the service, or the commitment to national security, or the victim's leadership or soundness of judgement. The most egregious attacks are those from the victim's fellow veterans, although the attack may be broadcast, and even broadened, by sundry partisans (it's reported that Ann Coulter has called the validity of Rep. Murtha's Purple Hearts into question. I wouldn't know firsthand. I don't read fiction, especially GOPorn®.) I would argue that McCain is guilty of the latter form of attack.

The specific attacks that were levied against John Kerry don't define the limits of what I think of as swiftboating. Jack Murtha was twice wounded while leading Marines in combat. He has experienced the reality of war in a way that's unimaginable to John McCain, just as McCain has experienced capture and imprisonment in a way unfathomable to those who haven't shared the experience. McCain's suggestion that Murtha's judgement might be overwhelmed by visiting those similarly injured, or by attending services for those tragically lost, and thus abandon his resolve concerning the security of the United States demeans not only Murtha's judgment, but his service and his patriotism.

Jack Murtha's made of tougher stuff than that. John McCain knows it. Granted, he hasn't crawled in the gutter with the Coulters of the wingnut world, but his message, that Col. John Murtha, USMC (ret.) just can't handle the tough business of making war, is swiftboating, just the same.

So, back to the broader point, I think you draw too narrow a boundary around the term. The attacks come from many quarters, in many ways. In fairness, those in the Cheney quarter who question John McCain's capacity to judge the issue of torture because of the trauma of his own captivity are swiftboating John McCain, just as the Bush campaign first used the tactic against McCain himself in the 2000 primary campaign. Of course, to me this history only increases the shame McCain incurs by adoption of the tactic.

Those are my first thoughts, anyway. I hope they're at least responsive. Revision is always possible, usually probable...