New Swiftboat ad

[amdaily]

Quite effective. In additon to medal winners in their own right, they now have POW's giving quite a strong and emotional statement against Kerry. Plus, there is no speculation to this ad, everything they say is repeated by Kerry.

a1281.v125028.c12502.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/1281/12502/v0001/eaglepub.downl oad.akamai.com/12502/sellout.wmv

Anyone wonder if Kerry is regretting saying "Bring it on!" is regards to his military service? Sweet irony I say .

[albionmoonlight]

You know who should be making a killing with all these free ads? Guys who sell Swiftboats.

[Arles]

It's not the ad that bothers me, it's the freakin pronunciation of Ghenghis Khan. There's just no way I can vote for a guy that says "Jenjis" Khan

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Arles

It's not the ad that bothers me, it's the freakin pronunciation of Ghenghis Khan. There's just no way I can vote for a guy that says "Jenjis" Khan

It is all the new rage among historians and academics. Just like Halley's comet, we have been mispronouncing it for generations.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

You know who should be making a killing with all these free ads? Guys who sell Swiftboats.

hehe.

BTW, John O'Neill's gonna be on the show at 3:45 Eastern this afternoon (on NRAnews.com). Should be a mighty interesting interview, in light of the new ad and the NYTimes piece today.

[SirFozzie]

*yawn*.. more lies from lying liars.

[druez]

there are usually two sides to every story and the truth lies somewhere in between huh?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

hehe.

BTW, John O'Neill's gonna be on the show at 3:45 Eastern this afternoon (on NRAnews.com). Should be a mighty interesting interview, in light of the new ad and the NYTimes piece today.

I may be working from home this afternoon. If so, I'll give a listen. My very public new office does not really afford the opportunity for radio listening.

[SirFozzie]

I should clarify my "lying liars" comment. Funny how they are desperately trying to say that he was not under small arms fire, when one of the members of the Swift Boat group filed an after action report that stated all boats were under enemy small arms fire.

Nothing more then a thinly veiled attack dog for the Rove-Bush tandem.

[CraigSca]

I think this year I'll vote for the candidate that doesn't lie. Time to rip up my voter registration, I guess.

Anyone else sick of the the rhetoric from both sides?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Anyone else sick of the the rhetoric from both sides?

NPR the other morning had a feature on people in Ohio who are just sick and tired of candidates coming to visit. It was funny to hear them.

[druez]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

I should clarify my "lying liars" comment. Funny how they are desperately trying to say that he was not under small arms fire, when one of the members of the Swift Boat group filed an after action report that stated all boats were under enemy small arms fire.

Nothing more then a thinly veiled attack dog for the Rove-Bush tandem.

I don't like Kerry. I think he was probably a good solider. I don't think he should of come back to the US and bashed his fellow soldiers. He did that for political reasons... If the vietnam war would of been popular, he would of never came back to the US and said what he did.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Arles

It's not the ad that bothers me, it's the freakin pronunciation of Ghenghis Khan. There's just no way I can vote for a guy that says "Jenjis" Khan

my biggest beef is when I hear Americans pronounce iraq as "Eye-raq"- goddammit, get it right!

[CraigSca]

I hate the way the people pronounce the town in which we live. I realize I've only lived here a year, but everyone knows you pronounce "Townsend" as "TOWN-sind", not "towns-END". Dang locals!

[Bee]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

I should clarify my "lying liars" comment. Funny how they are desperately trying to say that he was not under small arms fire, when one of the members of the Swift Boat group filed an after action report that stated all boats were under enemy small arms fire.

Nothing more then a thinly veiled attack dog for the Rove-Bush tandem.

I'm surprised this story didn't get more coverage here...I guess NoMyths was busy yesterday.

[Flasch186]

so any whistle blower is a "sellout", the FBI agent who warned of the aircraft piloting was a "sellout". The informant for watergate was a sellout. Its all crap, PErhaps he was telling the truth like the other whistleblowers. Thank god for the whistleblowers at Enron and their accounting people. If he was telling the truth, then that should be praised for coming forth in a country where free speech is tantamount to everything we fight for. If he is lying then that is wrong and he'll be judged in front of god and us, if we find out, but what if he was telling the truth. There are people who whistle blew in Abu Gharaib, thank god, or more innocents would be tortured by neerdowells, but isnt it possible that some neerdowells were in Vietnam too? And all of the movies reflect bad behavior from the time, isnt it possible that some of the extremes in the movies come from stories that maybe werent as terrible but somewhere maybe occurred.


It boils doen to this, if you dont like kerry youll grab onto anything these ads say that bolster your stance. If you dont like Bush youll say the opposite. EITHER way I personally dont believe that these are the issues that I and many americans will vote on. In my book, The admin we have now has done or not done too much to get my vote.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

*yawn*.. more lies from lying liars.

Well I don't think it is easy to just call these guys liars. Biased and serving an agenda other than "truth", I'll agree with. I think we would agree that these attacks on Kerry are meaningless, and in bad taste. I feel about them the same what that I feel about Michael Moore, and his attacks on Bush's service during Vietnam but I doubt you would be willing to join me in that sentiment.

[amdaily]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Funny how they are desperately trying to say that he was not under small arms fire, when one of the members of the Swift Boat group filed an after action report that stated all boats were under enemy small arms fire.

First, it's still debateable as to who wrote the report.

But secondly, Kerry's own diary seems to confirm they they were not under fire - at least in the Dec 2 episode. I'd sure like to know why this story isn't being reported more.

Over at JohnKerry.com, there are few documents that record exactly what happened on Dec. 2. What amounts to a record of the night are a timeline that states, "December 2, 1968: Kerry experiences first intense combat; receives first combat related injury"; a medical report that reads simply, "Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl[ied] bacitracin dressing. Ret[urned] to Duty"; and a citation from the Navy dated Feb. 28, 1969: "On behalf of the Chief of Naval Personnel, the Commander of U.S. Naval Support Activity, Saigon, hereby awards you the Purple Heart for injuries received on 2 December, 1968." And of course Mr. Kerry's own account.

But two weeks after Dec. 2, 1968, Mr. Kerry wrote an entry in his journal that raises questions about his own account of that night. Shortly after being wounded, Mr. Kerry was transferred to Cat Lo on the Mekong Delta and assumed his first command of a swift boat. In his biography of Mr. Kerry, "Tour of Duty," Douglas Brinkley reports on page 189 that soon after Mr. Kerry turned 25 on Dec. 11, 1968, he headed out on his first mission: "[The crew] had no lust for battle, but they also were not afraid. Kerry wrote in his notebook, 'A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky'. "

If he had not "been shot at" on Dec. 2, then what occurred could not be considered combat. Nevertheless, the Navy awarded Mr. Kerry his first Purple Heart.

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/200...2342-5914r.htm

Kerry could end this whole controversy once and for all by releasing all of his military records. But instead he resorts to personal attacks on POW's and Vietnam medal winners and tries to change the subject to Bush's "attack machine" rather than just outrightly refute their claims. Makes you think...

[Blackadar]

[quote=Glengoyne]Well I don't think it is easy to just call these guys liars. Biased and serving an agenda other than "truth", I'll agree with. I think we would agree that these attacks on Kerry are meaningless, and in bad taste. [quote]

I'd just call it lying. That's what it is.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Well I don't think it is easy to just call these guys liars. Biased and serving an agenda other than "truth", I'll agree with. I think we would agree that these attacks on Kerry are meaningless, and in bad taste. I feel about them the same what that I feel about Michael Moore, and his attacks on Bush's service during Vietnam but I doubt you would be willing to join me in that sentiment.

actually i agree but i find it ironic that the bush team wouldnt denounce the ads while Kerry did on his side. That, to me, speaks volumes about who is playing low ball and who isnt.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Well I don't think it is easy to just call these guys liars. Biased and serving an agenda other than "truth", I'll agree with. I think we would agree that these attacks on Kerry are meaningless, and in bad taste. I feel about them the same what that I feel about Michael Moore, and his attacks on Bush's service during Vietnam but I doubt you would be willing to join me in that sentiment.

Actually I do.

I had doubts about his service.. but when the missing documents showed up, I said "Ok.. that case is settled. Time to Move On."

Having a father just retired after 30+ years in the Air National Guard (fulltime), and especially considering the amount of Guard units that are getting sent overseas into harm's way.. I do not denigrate members of our guard.

The difference is when MoveOn.org attacked Bush's service in a commercial, Kerry immediately repudiated and denounced the attacks. When the Swift Boats continue their attack, the Bush crew says "Of COURSE we don't doubt the Senator's service in Vietnam, wink wink nudge nudge"

[SirFozzie]

"Unfit for Command" and the veterans group behind it are facing similar questions Thursday after the Washington Post torpedoed the veracity of one of its key members. Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has insisted Kerry lied about the circumstances surrounding his Bronze Star award, claiming Kerry's boat never came under enemy fire on March 13, 1969, the day an injured Kerry leaned overboard to scoop wounded Green Beret Larry Rassmann out of the river. But contrary to Thurlow's claim, the Washington Post has reported today that according to his own military files, which recorded the events of March 13, 1969, "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" were directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla, including Kerry's.

Earlier, Retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann, chairman and co-founder of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, flip-flopped on a key element of his Kerry story. In May, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported, "Hoffmann acknowledged he had no first-hand knowledge to discredit Kerry's claims to valor and said that although Kerry was under his command, he really didn't know Kerry much personally." But with the pending publication of "Unfit for Command," Hoffmann changed his story, insisting he "knew [Kerry] well."

Hoffmann wasn't alone in reversing his story on the Kerry attack. In 1968, Grant Hibbard, a lieutenant commander in Vietnam during Kerry's tour, described Kerry favorably: "One of the top few in his willingness to seek and accept responsibility." But now he claims Kerry lied about his service. Another vocal Kerry critic, Capt. George Elliot, who served in Vietnam at the same time Kerry did, praised Kerry both in a 1968 evaluation ("In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, Lieutenant Junior Grade Kerry was unsurpassed") and as recently as 1996 when Elliot publicly praised Kerry for charging after the enemy.

[Flasch186]

wow, thats new to me.....where are the lie birds now calling them out?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I'd just call it lying. That's what it is.

Have you actually watched the clip of this ad? A bunch of veterans pissed over what Kerry said upon returning to the U.S.. There are no assertions made, other than they felt/feel betrayed by what he said.

[CamEdwards]

Fozzie,

Just to clarify your comments... are you calling the POW's lying liars?

Also, you should be aware that regarding the "small arms fire" incident, of the 5 commanders of the 5 Swift Boats that were on the river that day, only John Kerry says there was small arms fire. When you say "one of the members of the Swift Boat group filed an after action report that stated all buats were under enemy small arms fire", Larry Thurlow says "To my knowledge, John Kerry was the only officer who filed a report describing his version of the incidents that occurred on the river that day."

Now, Mr. Thurlow claims that he didn't realize his Bronze Star citation included the language about enemy fire. When he was told by the Washington Post that it did, his reaction was quote- "My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting."

Thurlow said he would consider his award "fraudulent" if coming under enemy fire was the basis for it. "I am here to state that we weren't under fire," he said. -endquote

Now personally, I think if Thurlow disputes the language that led to his Bronze Star, he should turn in his medal. That's a decision he'll have to make.

You should also know, Fozzie, that when your candidate (and you) say this group is a thinly veiled attack dog for the Rove-Bush tandem, you're talking about a violation of election law. If that truly were the case, I'm sure Senator Kerry would be hauling these guys into court faster than you could blink.

[SirFozzie]

Um.. Cam.. re-read the section I posted above.

THURLOW'S OWN FILES state that all the boats were under small arms and automatic fire.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Um.. Cam.. re-read the section I posted above.

THURLOW'S OWN FILES state that all the boats were under small arms and automatic fire.

Thurlow claims his commander wrote that based on Kerry's AAR and put it in his files when they awarded him his bronze star.

I really don't know the truth, but I think the whole discussion is kind of pointless and all the comments going back and forth are just politics as normal.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

The difference is when MoveOn.org attacked Bush's service in a commercial, Kerry immediately repudiated and denounced the attacks. When the Swift Boats continue their attack, the Bush crew says "Of COURSE we don't doubt the Senator's service in Vietnam, wink wink nudge nudge"

I am starting to agree with this. When the ad initially came out, Bush's campain spokesman came out and said that they had nothing to do with the ad, and that the president didn't in any way question Kerry's service in Vietnam. The spokesman added that President Bush and his campain actually wished that all such support group ads were illegal.

At first I was ok with leaving it there, but now that this is becoming more of an issue, I do think the president himself should denounce at least the first ad.

The second ad is different to me, because it didn't attack Kerry and his service to his country. It attacks things that he said before congress upon returning from Vietnam.

[CamEdwards]

Fozzie,

Yes, I know what you said. I was merely pointing out that Thurlow is disputing what was in his files, and says he never wrote an after action report. In fact, he's sworn an affadavit to that effect.

By the way, there's a pretty good interview with O'Neill here. A couple of the questions are a little rah-rahish, but they also ask some pretty pointed questions that I've wondered about myself.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4835

[portnoise]

Originally Posted by druez

I don't like Kerry. I think he was probably a good solider. I don't think he should of come back to the US and bashed his fellow soldiers. He did that for political reasons... If the vietnam war would of been popular, he would of never came back to the US and said what he did.

So everyone who protested the Vietnam war did it for political reasons? Um, it was a political issue.

And yes, if Vietnam had been widely believed to be necessary and justified, there would have been no need for protest--but that wasn't the case.

Yet more "all dissent is unpatriotic" rhetoric.

NY Times debunks the ad.
Why won't the Swift Boat Veterans release *their* records?
NY Times charts out the many connections between SBVT and Bush/Rove.

Edit: typo.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by portnoise

So everyone who protested the Vietnam war did it for political reasons? Um, it was a political issue.

And yes, if Vietnam had been widely believed to be necessary and justified, there would have been no need for protest--but that wasn't the case.

Yet more "all dissent is unpatriotic" rhetoric.

NY Times debunks the ad.
Why won't the Swift Boat Veterans release *their* records?
NY Times charts out the many connections between SBVT and Bush/Rove.

Edit: typo.

If there's any "all dissent is unpatriotic" going around, it would seem to be directed at the Swift Boat guys, in my opinion.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Bee

Thurlow claims his commander wrote that based on Kerry's AAR and put it in his files when they awarded him his bronze star.

Which, I think it bears noting, wouldn't exactly be unheard of AFAIK.

(Yes, I'm saying that this isn't the first time questions have been raised about the validity of various military citations, be they Kerry's or someone else's.
I wasn't there, I can't confirm/deny any of the claims by either camp in any of the situations, I'm just pointing out that this isn't exactly uncharted territory either).

[portnoise]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

If there's any "all dissent is unpatriotic" going around, it would seem to be directed at the Swift Boat guys, in my opinion.

Except that the things that they say contradict what's been public record for 30 years, contradict things some of them have said in the past (see NY Times chart linked above), are unsupported by the evidence that exists, or are ultimately both unprovable and unfalsifiable.

I don't read about poeple questioning their patriotism or their right to speak--I hear people questioning their supporting evidence, and that's different.

[Warhammer]

Guys, don't forget John O'Neill has been fighting Kerry over much of this same stuff since 1971. It's not like these guys JUST sprouted.

[amdaily]

Originally Posted by portnoise

I don't read about poeple questioning ... their right to speak

Except of course for Senator Kerry. If it were up to him all published copies of "Unfit For Command" would be rounded up for a BBQ.

"The Kerry campaign calls on a publisher to 'withdraw book' written by group of veterans, claiming veterans are lying about Kerry's service in Vietnam and operating as a front organization for Bush. Kerry campaign has told Salon.com that the publisher of UNFIT FOR COMMAND is 'retailing a hoax'... 'No publisher should want to be selling books with proven falsehoods in them,' Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton tells the online mag... Developing..."

hxxp://www.drudgereport.com

[SirFozzie]

Sure.. withdrawing a book=holding a book BBQ. yup.. you know it

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by amdaily

Except of course for Senator Kerry. If it were up to him all published copies of "Unfit For Command" would be rounded up for a BBQ.

"The Kerry campaign calls on a publisher to 'withdraw book' written by group of veterans, claiming veterans are lying about Kerry's service in Vietnam and operating as a front organization for Bush. Kerry campaign has told Salon.com that the publisher of UNFIT FOR COMMAND is 'retailing a hoax'... 'No publisher should want to be selling books with proven falsehoods in them,' Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton tells the online mag... Developing..."

I'd say the exact same thing if someone published a book with outright lies about me.

[chinaski]

Cam: Ask that Nixon suck up John O'Neill if hes still carrying a grudge for getting his ass handed to him by Kerry on the Dick Cavett show.

[amdaily]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I'd say the exact same thing if someone published a book with outright lies about me.

You mean like Fahrenheit 9/11 did to Bush? At least he refrained himself from calling for outright censorship of speech that doesn't show him in the best possible light.

[Arles]

Kerry took a political stand against the war and probably used some hyperbole on what he saw to help make his point. I think it's safe to say that Kerry himself didn't witness all those atrocities considering his limited time in combat. But if you remove some of the hyperbole, he has a right to state that opinion on the war.

However, if a group of POWs and soldiers that were also in Vietnam want to state how Kerry's words were used by the enemy to kill their spirit and it upset them, they should have the right to say that as well without being labeled liars.

The POW who came out and spoke in that ad on how Kerry's words were used against him is no more a liar or political than guys like Rasmussen used by Kerry to give the other side. If you're fine with one side, you have to be OK with both - since they are primarily opinions based on their own (albeit different) experiences.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Arles

Kerry took a political stand against the war and probably used some hyperbole on what he saw to help make his point. I think it's safe to say that Kerry himself didn't witness all those atrocities considering his limited time in combat. But if you remove some of the hyperbole, he has a right to state that opinion on the war.

However, if a group of POWs and soldiers that were also in Vietnam want to state how Kerry's words were used by the enemy to kill their spirit and it upset them, they should have the right to say that as well without being labeled liars.

The POW who came out and spoke in that ad on how Kerry's words were used against him is no more a liar or political than guys like Rasmussen used by Kerry to give the other side. If you're fine with one side, you have to be OK with both - since they are primarily opinions based on their own (albeit different) experiences.

That's fine. I have no problem with that. But their first ad and the book to follow seems to be, examining all reasonable evidence, a fabrication. That's not OK.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

That's fine. I have no problem with that. But their first ad and the book to follow seems to be, examining all reasonable evidence, a fabrication. That's not OK.

Then why not sue the author of the book for libel and the producer of the ad for slander? If it's lies it should be an easy enough case to win. Why pressure booksellers? They're just middlemen. That's what I don't understand.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Dola - it's like those people who protested or boycotted movie theaters for showing Farenheit 9/11. It's totally pointless. It's not going to stop the movie from being shown.

[SirFozzie]

Because the court system moves like a glacier, and by the time it came around to trial, we'd be ready for "Who's going to replace Bush" or "can Kerry hold on for a 2nd term"...

It's MUD-throwing and FUD-slinging (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt). It doesn't have to be true to be effective

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by amdaily

You mean like Fahrenheit 9/11 did to Bush? At least he refrained himself from calling for outright censorship of speech that doesn't show him in the best possible light.

So Michael Moore now is the excuse all die-hard Republicans will use to flat-out assassinate (lie about) someone's character?

By the way, most of the issues raised by Michael Moore are, at the very least, plausible and have some factual basis. Whether you agree with the conclusions or not is a different story. Much like the movie JFK. There is some drama involved, but very much of the story is based in fact. It's whether you draw the same conclusions from those facts is the difference in perception.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Because the court system moves like a glacier, and by the time it came around to trial, we'd be ready for "Who's going to replace Bush" or "can Kerry hold on for a 2nd term"...

It's MUD-throwing and FUD-slinging (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt). It doesn't have to be true to be effective

Beyond that, it's almost impossible to get it stopped UNTIL it's published. Because until it's published, it's not libel.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Beyond that, it's almost impossible to get it stopped UNTIL it's published. Because until it's published, it's not libel.

So file now. The book's been published. Two ads have run, why not file now to get it stopped? The Kerry camp could request an emergency injunction to get the ads stopped and prevent the books from being sold. Why not do that? Even if the court system moves slowly, they could walk into court and get an injunction in the span of three days. Why haven't they?

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

*yawn*.. more lies from lying liars.

A little late on the trigger, but just saw this thread. Aren't lying liars truthful? (i.e. if you lie about lying then you are either telling the truth or standing up)

[portnoise]

Originally Posted by amdaily

Except of course for Senator Kerry. If it were up to him all published copies of "Unfit For Command" would be rounded up for a BBQ.

"The Kerry campaign calls on a publisher to 'withdraw book' written by group of veterans, claiming veterans are lying about Kerry's service in Vietnam and operating as a front organization for Bush. Kerry campaign has told Salon.com that the publisher of UNFIT FOR COMMAND is 'retailing a hoax'... 'No publisher should want to be selling books with proven falsehoods in them,' Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton tells the online mag... Developing..."

hxxp://www.drudgereport.com

Kerry MUST be seen to be fighting back when hit--especially if he's going to continue to protray strength as one of his, er, strengths. Both Gore and Dukakis suffered because they didn't fight back against such attacks.

That means getting the idea that "these are unsubstantiated claims" or "lies" out into mainstream discourse. The important thing about fighting the distribution of the book is not actually shutting the guys up, but letting it be known that they're lying and he's not going to sit back and take it. You don't have to take the guys all the way to court--you just have to get your side of the argument into the papers, which they've done.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

A little late on the trigger, but just saw this thread. Aren't lying liars truthful? (i.e. if you lie about lying then you are either telling the truth or standing up)

Nope.

They're Liars, and they're lying (at least about the initial claims, I have not seen the POW commercial yet)