Swiftboats srike with ad

[Ya_know]

Ok Techs, they're still at it...these guys served with him, and around him, one guy even treated his first injury...I am curious to know their full accounts...and I think you need to apply some validity to their case before discounting it entirely...

I don’t give a damn about John McCain denouncing the ad, if these guys are making it up then yes it is wrong and they should be dealt with. But if they are telling the truth then they have every right to speak out against Kerry and his supporters.

So, how do we prove these guys wrong and Kerry right techs…cause some fancy talk ain’t going to do it this time…As it stands one thing we know for sure, Kerry did protest the war, did testify in the Senate selling out all of his “band of brothers”, and he does have a shadow of doubt on his 4 month short war record.

Here’s the ad:
http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_video_wmv.html

[paraflyer]

"Get ready for all-out global thermal nuclear campaign war. Maybe Kerry would have been better off running on his Senate record instead of his Vietnam record. Wait! I almost forgot. Kerry doesn't have a Senate record. Twenty years ... and he accomplished absolutely nothing. He couldn't even show up for meetings of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The latest excerpt from Drudge has the Swiftees accusing The Poodle of executing a fleeing innocent Vietnamese teenager. Not good...this is the incident that led to a Silver Star for Kerry. The Kerry campaign is of course, calling the whole thing trash, and asking 'how low can they go?' There's only one problem with all of this. There are 13 Vietnam veterans in that television ad....are they all liars? Have they all decided to interrupt their private lives for the glare of the media spotlight just so they could lie about The Great and Omnipotent John Kerry?

It sounds to me like John Kerry's four-month tour of duty in Vietnam is being exposed for somewhat less an epic of heroism than the Democrats have presented to the American people. It's also beginning (beginning?) to sound like Kerry cheated, lied and worked the system to get his medals. Worst of all, he came back and protested the war, lied about his fellow veterans and made their lives miserable."

Gotta love Boortz's take on that one......

BTW, the ad's also at http://swiftvets.com

[paraflyer]

"It's an unhappy impression of unrivaled opportunism that continues to define Kerry now as it did then, and which strikes many voters as the most legitimate and adhesive charge against his qualification to be commander in chief."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001996876_collin05.html

[Cleetus]

Who fuking cares, why exactly would someone had to have served in Vietnam to be president, who cares if they protested cause it ain't like they were the only ones or it is unconstitutional(screw the Code, ya_know these guys are still citizens), who cares what happened 30 years ago. It is obvious the Republicans got over the fact that Bush did coke, was a drunk driver, crashed several businesses, or do the Democrats not get the same decency shown to Bush?

[techs]

I have to go back and find the story on this group. From what I can remember it is funded with 151,000 dollars. 100,000 came from a texas businessman who is a fundraiser for Bush. And 35,000 came form another businessman not a vet. No one who supports Kerry can join.
I also know that these guys will not deny they weren't paid for their statements(rather some will, some won't). If you listen closely the stories don't hold up. The guys that claim to have served with Kerry never actually served with him. They were just swift boat vets who were in Vietnam at the same time as Kerry. The guy that says he was Kerrys commander was his commander in the sense that Creighton Abrams was everyones commander. In other words not directly his superior but far removed with no actual knowledge of Kerrys deeds except what you and I can read. Some guy claims he knows Kerry was wounded by friendly fire and not enemy fire. You get the purple heart either way but since he "knows" it was friendly fire Kerry "lied about his purple heart and doesn't deserve it" not based on him not being injured but based on his lying. How you can detemine in a firefight which side wonded you with a ricochet is beyond me. A couple of them who make the most striking arguments refuse to back up or say they have no hard evidence.
So basically some Anti-Kerry fundraiser found guys willing to say anything.
Even Bush says Kerry was a hero.
Frankly it should be embarrassing to Republicans to have the support of these guys but in the "anything goes" Reublican campaign they hope no one looks to closely.
Once again instead of issues its smears.

[geoscomp]

Larry Thurlow, a member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who appears in the ad, told CNN that Kerry's boat fled from a mine blast that damaged another vessel in a March 1969 incident for which Kerry won the Bronze Star.

"Our boats immediately put automatic weapons fire onto the left bank in case there was an ambush in conjunction with the mine," said Thurlow, a Navy officer in a nearby boat at the time. "It soon became apparent there was no ambush."

But Jim Rassman, the man whose rescue from the water in that incident resulted in Kerry being decorated, said Thurlow "has a very unusual recollection of events."

"I was receiving fire in the water every time I came up for air," said Rassman, who has campaigned for Kerry since January.

The Navy's own letter awarding Kerry the Bronze Star also appears to be at odds with what the anti-Kerry group asserts.

The letter states Kerry exhibited "great personal courage under fire" in rescuing Rassman, an Army Green Beret officer who recommended Kerry for the decoration.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is registered as an independent "527" committee, named for the section of the federal tax code under which similar groups are organized. Its contributors include several major Republican donors.




Looks more like a ploy to stop the '527' orgs like move-on.org from fielding their own commercials..if you take this quote from the press secretary for Bush to heart:

In Columbus, Ohio, where the president was traveling Thursday, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan cast the commercial as a product of "unregulated soft money activity."

"We will not and have not questioned Sen. Kerry's service record in Vietnam," he said. "This is another example of the problem of unregulated soft money."

The president, he said, "thought he got rid of all of this when he signed the McCain-Feingold bill [regulating campaign financing] into law," adding, "This should all be stopped. It does nothing to elevate the discourse."

The Bush press secretary said he "hopes the Kerry campaign will join us in calling for an end to all unregulated ads."

Asked whether the campaign will demand the ad be pulled from the air, he said, "We are calling for a cessation of all unregulated ads and hope the Kerry campaign will join us."

[techs]

[QUOTE]



Looks more like a ploy to stop the '527' orgs like move-on.org from fielding their own commercials..if you take this quote from the press secretary for Bush to heart:

I would want to stop soft money ads if I broke all records for "hard money" fundraising. Plus I get a month where I can outspend Kerry by an obscene amount. And all I had to do to get this advantage was be the second person in history to decline federal financing of a primary campaign.
Did I also mention I was the first person to decline it?
Geroge Bush

[paraflyer]

I have to go back and find the story on this group. From what I can remember it is funded with 151,000 dollars. 100,000 came from a texas businessman who is a fundraiser for Bush. And 35,000 came form another businessman not a vet. No one who supports Kerry can join.

So?

moveon.org is funded by George Soros, for a hell of a lot more $$$$$.

Bush supporters not welcome.

Big difference......not.

[techs]

So?

moveon.org is funded by George Soros, for a hell of a lot more $$$$$.

Bush supporters not welcome.

Big difference......not.

Not to get into a p*ssing war but the move.on commercials I have seen were about the deficit, the reasons for going to war and the funding of first responders.
Quite a difference.

[Ya_know]

Not to get into a p*ssing war but the move.on commercials I have seen were about the deficit, the reasons for going to war and the funding of first responders.
Quite a difference.

Let's not forget that they compared Bush to Hitler...I remember, did you forget?

[Ya_know]

I have to go back and find the story on this group. From what I can remember it is funded with 151,000 dollars. 100,000 came from a texas businessman who is a fundraiser for Bush. And 35,000 came form another businessman not a vet. No one who supports Kerry can join.
I also know that these guys will not deny they weren't paid for their statements(rather some will, some won't). If you listen closely the stories don't hold up. The guys that claim to have served with Kerry never actually served with him. They were just swift boat vets who were in Vietnam at the same time as Kerry. The guy that says he was Kerrys commander was his commander in the sense that Creighton Abrams was everyones commander. In other words not directly his superior but far removed with no actual knowledge of Kerrys deeds except what you and I can read. Some guy claims he knows Kerry was wounded by friendly fire and not enemy fire. You get the purple heart either way but since he "knows" it was friendly fire Kerry "lied about his purple heart and doesn't deserve it" not based on him not being injured but based on his lying. How you can detemine in a firefight which side wonded you with a ricochet is beyond me. A couple of them who make the most striking arguments refuse to back up or say they have no hard evidence.
So basically some Anti-Kerry fundraiser found guys willing to say anything.
Even Bush says Kerry was a hero.
Frankly it should be embarrassing to Republicans to have the support of these guys but in the "anything goes" Reublican campaign they hope no one looks to closely.
Once again instead of issues its smears.

The fact that he may have lied in order to receive the purple hearts does make a big difference, even if it was a case of friendly vs. enemy fire. If the accounts aren't completely accurate, and they were just taken on face value from what was told by Kerry, in which he may have fabricated a little or a lot, then this NEEDS to be scrutinized.

We know he served, we know he was in combat. What we don’t know is what was done to get these awards, during or after the actual events. Why does he profess himself to be a “hero” when a true hero would never be so bold? A true hero wouldn’t protest their brothers while they still fought and died so he could sit in Congress and sell them out. A true hero would have stayed his full tour in Viet Nam, and not weaseled his way out with a technicality of having 3 purple hearts. Anyone else is a vet that served his country without any extraordinary merit…which is grand in itself, but to fake being a hero just to go home early is grotesque!

It’s looking pretty bad…I almost conceded that his record should be put to rest, but now I want to know even more…

[pmetal]

Who fuking cares, why exactly would someone had to have served in Vietnam to be president, who cares if they protested cause it ain't like they were the only ones or it is unconstitutional(screw the Code, ya_know these guys are still citizens), who cares what happened 30 years ago. It is obvious the Republicans got over the fact that Bush did coke, was a drunk driver, crashed several businesses, or do the Democrats not get the same decency shown to Bush?

The only reason Vietnam is an issue is because KERRY is running his whole campaign around his service there. HE brought it to the table, so it is fair game. If he didn't want people to scrutinize it, he should have never brought it up.

Not to mention, it was okay for the Demoncrats to bring up Bush's National Guard service, which was also many years ago. So now it's not okay to examine Kerry's record.

Demoncrats, kings of the double-standard.

[Cleetus]

The only reason Vietnam is an issue is because KERRY is running his whole campaign around his service there. HE brought it to the table, so it is fair game. If he didn't want people to scrutinize it, he should have never brought it up.

Not to mention, it was okay for the Demoncrats to bring up Bush's National Guard service, which was also many years ago. So now it's not okay to examine Kerry's record.

Demoncrats, kings of the double-standard.

Oh yeah, the publicans are so up for saint hood aren't they, please

Hey ya_know, would a hero go against the grain and the law and everyone he knows to do what is right, or at least what they think is right?

[Ya_know]

Hey ya_know, would a hero go against the grain and the law and everyone he knows to do what is right, or at least what they think is right?

Only if he was right. Kerry's methods wasn't.

Here's where your argument goes onto shaky ground, he's not saying that by protesting the war that he was a hero, quite the contrary, he's saying his time served in combat was what made him a hero, this was everything he came home and protested about. "flip-flop-flip!"...what am I supposed to support or believe, for that matter, what are you trying to support or believe?

Bottom line is, if all of these allegations are true, or largely true, then there is no way he is fit to be commander in chief of the worlds most powerful force...

[techs]

Ya_know What we don’t know is what was done to get these awards, during or after the actual events. ... A true hero wouldn’t protest their brothers while they still fought and died so he could sit in Congress and sell them out.
Once again you have seen the citations and the after action reports but still insist we "don't know" what happened. I guess you need to hear it on Fox before you believe anything.
And a "real hero" he was too. Protesting the war did not sell out his comrades. It brought them home. Without the protests we might still be fighting in VietNam.

[Cleetus]

If he lied, he will fry, yes. but if he didn't, then will anyone believe him anyway, or apologize?

And how is it flip-floping to serve, yet not support the reasons why you serve?

[imaeditedbysowulo]

I would like to read this book, but the free online copy is only available if you buy a stupid subscription. In my book that's not free.

If they really wanted to get their message out, they would put it out.

Besides that, the only person I saw mentioned by name is the guy who replaced Kerry when he left. That's not considered serving with Kerry in my book. I want to hear from the guys that were right next to him and saw the same stuff that he saw.

[jitBob]

"It's an unhappy impression of unrivaled opportunism that continues to define Kerry now as it did then, and which strikes many voters as the most legitimate and adhesive charge against his qualification to be commander in chief."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001996876_collin05.html
You are quoting an editorial columnist who also has this to say about smoker rights:

"The antismoking activists will insist that this is somehow a plot hatched by Big Tobacco to continue brainwashing the young and impressionable. But at the end of the day, smokers are grown ups. They know what they are doing. And they are finally speaking up for themselves.
The options are often witty and sometimes thoughtful: "Life is More than Longevity, "Smoking Causes Statistics" and "Smoking Creates Busibodies." And, as found on a British Web site, sometimes relay their message with gusto: "Smoking is Cool," "You could be Hit By a Bus Tomorrow," "Social Smoking Doesn't Count," and, best of all, "Smoking Makes You Look Big and Clever."


http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/clevey/

Do you really take her opinions as fact?

[paraflyer]

You are quoting an editorial columnist who also has this to say about smoker rights:

"The antismoking activists will insist that this is somehow a plot hatched by Big Tobacco to continue brainwashing the young and impressionable. But at the end of the day, smokers are grown ups. They know what they are doing. And they are finally speaking up for themselves.
The options are often witty and sometimes thoughtful: "Life is More than Longevity, "Smoking Causes Statistics" and "Smoking Creates Busibodies." And, as found on a British Web site, sometimes relay their message with gusto: "Smoking is Cool," "You could be Hit By a Bus Tomorrow," "Social Smoking Doesn't Count," and, best of all, "Smoking Makes You Look Big and Clever."


http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/clevey/

Do you really take her opinions as fact?

More so than, say, Al Franken.

[pmetal]

I would like to read this book, but the free online copy is only available if you buy a stupid subscription. In my book that's not free.

If they really wanted to get their message out, they would put it out.

Besides that, the only person I saw mentioned by name is the guy who replaced Kerry when he left. That's not considered serving with Kerry in my book. I want to hear from the guys that were right next to him and saw the same stuff that he saw.

They are offering a free chapter, which they email to you. I got it yesterday, haven't had time to read it all though.