The ads are not meant to influence the presidential election.

Does anyone really believe this? From the Swiftvets.com web site:
For more than thirty years, most Vietnam veterans kept silent as we were maligned as misfits, addicts, and baby killers. Now that a key creator of that poisonous image is seeking the Presidency we have resolved to end our silence.

Posted by: Todd at August 10, 2004 01:59 PM

As long as ANSWER and MoveOn.org can air their “Anybody but Bush” lies, the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth can air their ad.

Interesting how quickly the Loony Left will cry “Free speech!” when someone dares to point out their selective memories, but they go on the offensive against the Swiftboat Veterans with more speed than a John Kerry flip-flop.

Posted by: gus3 at August 10, 2004 02:04 PM

Free speech for me - but not for thee…

Sorry - but free speech works both ways. Already sent my non-tax-deductable donation to the Swifts…

J.

Posted by: JLL3 at August 10, 2004 02:37 PM

If Michael Moore can release his “documentary” which is (as a friend said to me) “just one man’s opinion,” then the SBVT can certainly do this.

Posted by: Bostonian at August 10, 2004 02:37 PM

What about the musicians like Springsteen touring around asking their fans to vote for Kerry? Is that OK?

Posted by: shanti at August 10, 2004 02:41 PM

I need a support group to deal with the anger and other emotional issues such a blatant double standard causes me. Any suggestions?

Posted by: TBox at August 10, 2004 03:08 PM

I can’t believe Todd waded right into this rip tide. He’s a goner. This is a clear case of kettle and pot. And of course the liberals do what they do best, run to the government for help. Such a bunch of weenies, they are contemptable.

Further, these actions strengthen the swift boat’s. If Kerry&Co has a factual response, let’s hear it, so far all we’ve seen are these peripheral legal manipulations.

If Kerry has a refutation, leave us hear it. I really haven’t seen anything of substance yet. But I have seen all of this whining about the “rules”

What a bunch of losers the left turned out to be.

Posted by: skip at August 10, 2004 03:08 PM

“I need a support group to deal with the anger and other emotional issues such a blatant double standard causes me. Any suggestions?”

Grab a SwiftBoat and take a ride on the TIDES. :o)

The italicized portion Posted by: TBox at August 10, 2004 03:08 PM

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at August 10, 2004 03:18 PM

Let John Kerry release his HIDDEN MEDICAL RECORDS and all of his Vietnam service records.

George W. Bush did that and shut up that Bastard McAuliffe. Moore is still “mouth-far_ _ ng” but not for long.

Posted by: leaddog2 at August 10, 2004 03:21 PM

Gus nailed it:

As long as ANSWER and MoveOn.org can air their “Anybody but Bush” lies, the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth can air their ad.

I had a post about this way back (the formatting is screwy from the move from blogger to TypePad).

Bush was right about McCain-Feingold. He thought he got rid of this stuff. By a strict reading of the law, these ads probably aren’t allowed. OTOH, SwiftVets could be argued to “just be telling the truth” even though we all know they are trying to influence the election.

I’m glad that someone has challenged an ad finally so there will be some kind of guidelines as to what is and isn’t allowed. In this case, challenging the Swift Vets ad will only mean that more people are going to hear about it and see it.

Posted by: Nathan Hamm at August 10, 2004 03:58 PM

Nathan has a good point. Some precendence has to be set, no doubt about it. I wonder if the FEC is really prepared to deal with the number of issues that will be raised during this election.

I do recall that at least one FEC commissioner wrote a lengthy piece on NRO about the unenforceability of McCAin Feingold.

Should be a real circus, especially if the left gears up their hoardes of savage lawyers.

Posted by: skip at August 10, 2004 04:04 PM

Skip,

Back off the rhetoric a bit and look at this objectively. Can the swift vets credibly claim that they are not trying to influence the election, given their own explanation for their timing?

As for a clear case of a double standard, you can’t have such selective memory to have forgotten this battle:

The Bush-Cheney re-election campaign plans to file a complaint Wednesday [May 5, 2004] with the Federal Election Commission, charging that a $5.1 million anti-Bush ad campaign in key battleground states violates the new campaign finance reform law, spokesman Terry Holt said.

Posted by: Todd at August 10, 2004 04:23 PM

That’s my point exactly T-man. The law is a nightmare and I for one don’t want the FEC to decide what the American people can or cannot see or hear during a campaign.

Using this law to squash the swift boaties is wrong. Using the law to squash the morondotcom morons is also wrong.

did I make myself clear?

Posted by: skip at August 10, 2004 04:33 PM

Skip,

I see your point, and tend to agree.

What about the credibility gap?

Posted by: Todd at August 10, 2004 04:40 PM

Ok, good points all.

I tend to agree with Todd here; despite the fact that these ads are no different, as a number of others correctly pointed out, than MoveOn or ACT, the idea that these guys are not trying to influence the Presidential election is pretty absurd.

Nevertheless, the mere fact that this has been so vociferously maligned just goes to show you how damaging they think the ad was. The idea that this is a violation of campaign finance and some of the Bush-bash ads aren’t is equally ridiculous.

Personally, I think it all violates the campaign finance reform, which was why I was against McCain-Feingold from the start.

Posted by: johnnymozart at August 10, 2004 04:58 PM

The campaign finance reform laws are nothing less than Uncostitutional violations of the First Amendment.

abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
******************************************
Should they try to enforce them against the Swiftboat Veterans I for one would LOVE to watch them envoke their right to a trial by a jury of their peers.

VIIth Amendment
******************************************

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at August 10, 2004 06:31 PM

Does it matter to anyone that John Kerry testified to being in Cambodia on his Swift when NO ONE who served with him agrees?

I’m sorry, but I don’t see the SMEAR here. The guy is clearly delusional - like Ross Perot-delusional, but because the testimony was offered 30 years ago and Kerry’s crew is hoping you don’t make too much of it - we’re supposed to forget that he was clearly lying to embellish his story, burnish his reputation?

My brother relates a brother-in-law of his, a buck private in the Army, has been regaling the ladies in his famly with his stories from the first Gulf War. How he flew B-52s, how he was dropped behind enemy lines, how he hunted for Saddam. A buck private.

My brother discovered these stories, but can’t even generate the energy to hate the guy, because he’s obviously a sad little moron amongst a gaggle of brainless and gullible relatives.

And he’s the first guy I thought of when I read of Kerry’s stellar military career.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at August 10, 2004 06:43 PM

Todd -

Of course it is intended to influence the election. These vets are extremely concerned about the possibility of Kerry becoming CinC.

His campaign is doing what the left has consistently done with damaging information: delay, deflect, deny, destroy.

The Swift Vets have made a case and deserve to be heard. If this were about George W. Bush, the media would be all over it. The fact that for the most part they are complicit with Kerry in trying to cover this over should be of more concern to you than this nonsense about campaign finance reform laws.

Someone as deceptive and delusional as Kerry should only be let in the White House on a tour - if that.

Posted by: Jim at August 10, 2004 06:49 PM

T8

That is funny. I thought of Fuzzy when I heard about Kerry. He hunts at a camp down the road from our camp.

During the First Gulf War, Fuzzy was alone in the desert. Even the Army didn’t know he was there. He was killing guys at a 1000 yards too.

The thing about Fuzzy is that he doesn’t want to control my life, like Kerry does.

Posted by: jones at August 10, 2004 07:11 PM

No question, the self-styled Swift Boat Vets deserve to be heard.

Just not to be taken seriously.

Posted by: Don at August 10, 2004 08:28 PM

Now Don,

Why shouldn’t every member of Kerry’s immediate chain of Command in Vietnam be taken seriously. I think Kerry’s taking it seriously enough.

Chads

Posted by: Chads at August 10, 2004 08:44 PM

A little more food for thought since we’re on the topic of legal media machinations.

From, Oh that Liberal Media

“Several members of Congress sent a letter Tuesday to Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News, to express their opposition to what they say is the network’s ‘unfair and unbalanced’ bias towards the Republican Party.”
So reports the UPI yesterday.
The group, composed of 38 Democrats and Independents from the U.S. House of Representatives, has requested that Murdoch meet with them to discuss their concerns.
“The responsibility of the media is to report the news in an unbiased, impartial and objective manner,” the letter reads.
“It seems clear that Fox News network has a deliberate bias in favor of, and often serves as an extension of, the Republican Party’s policies and ideology.”
Murdoch owns 100 cable channels, 40 television stations, nine satellite networks, one film studio and 175 newspapers, reaching an estimated 4.7 billion people worldwide.
The letter’s co-signers include Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., a member of the House Democratic Leadership, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., ranking member on the Joint Economic Committee.
A spokesman for Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said there were legislative avenues that the group could pursue as a secondary measure but declined to speculate on what those might be.”

So who’s the censor now?

Chads

Posted by: Chads at August 10, 2004 08:46 PM

The DNC is attempting to mire the SwiftVets in the costs of red tape, in the hope that they will die from lack of funds.

SwiftVets Ad and “Unfit For Command” are seperate entities, yet convieniently tied together. It’s a two pronged assault.

And it is apparently working, as the DNC can’t seem to spin the inaccuracies of their own candidates previous statements. When it comes to questions about the SwiftVets claims, “I’ll get back to you” seems to be the Kerry Campaign’s “phrase du jour”.

Posted by: ET at August 10, 2004 09:58 PM

..this needs to go to court so the whole country can see the double standard…

Posted by: Rob_NC at August 10, 2004 10:17 PM

Don, In the future ‘self-styled’ Swift boat Vets should only be referred to as ‘so-called’ Swift boat Vets.

Just because the guys were in the Navy, in the Delta, on Swift Boats, on Kerry’s Swift Boat, when Kerry was on the same Swift boat, watching him and detailing his behavior doesn’t make them Swift Boat Vets, now does it?

Please, let’s use ‘so-called’ from this point out.

- DNC Spin Directorate

Posted by: torpedo_eight at August 10, 2004 11:01 PM

Don’t mind Don. He’s a part of a “self-styled”, “liberal” “psy-ops” “campaign” that is “backfiring”.

Don’s coming in 6th in a “5th Column” race.

Posted by: Max Darkside at August 11, 2004 12:14 AM

The funny thing is that the SBVFT are hitting Kerry with a guerrilla style manuever. Let’s see how he handles a little insurgency! The more he hits back the more their story gains tractions. This will get more interesting.

Chads

Posted by: Chads at August 11, 2004 01:02 AM

This page:

http://www.eriposte.com/media/liars_inc/swiftboat.htm

is one of many that present arguments debunking the SwiftVets, and often by simply checking sources. Elliott’s quotes of strong support for Kerry, both in Vietnam and in `96 when he spoke alongside him, seem to undermine his credibility in any forum in the future. They certainly deserve to be heard, that is their right. But it’s such a blatantly hollow and disingenuous organization that caveats should be attached to all their ads, I think. To even consider listening to men who WERE NOT on Kerry’s boat, while ignoring the unanimous word of the men WHO WERE on the boat seems very self-serving, and just another way of ignoring the bigger issues in the coming election.

Posted by: Jatsby at August 11, 2004 03:49 AM

Lets see; there are only ten men on a Swift Boat. It carries only one officer and he is but a lowly Lieutenant grade. The boats travel TOGETHER and not alone for all missions. Now lets see Jatsby, there are 250 men involved with the Swift Boats were say that Kerry is UNFIT because of his varioius actions. These include lying about being in Cambodia, carrying a camera to recreate his supposed heroics, and crying oweeeeee from self inflicted wounds. Self serving my ass. These men bring much more credibility to the delusions of Kerry than one fat man he saved by pulling him out of the water. The few ‘band of brothers’ are all hangers on….they are getting a free ride from the DNC….the best hotels, the best meals, and are having the time of their miserable lives by being Kerry’s roadies!!

Posted by: dickmr at August 11, 2004 05:01 AM

WERE NOT on Kerry’s boat
*****************************************
So? SwiftBoast operated in squadrons.
So the men in the boats beside Kerrys were in much more contact with him than say men in a larger ship serving together would be.

Next you will tell us the men different aircraft could not talk about anyone else but men in the same aircraft with them?

You might want to learn a little bit about the military before you stant pontificating.

In combat lifes can depend on the actiions of others in the same outfit. NOT necessarily the same craft.

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at August 11, 2004 05:47 AM

That’s quite cynical. It appears you didn’t actually read the page that I posted…but you’re willing to repeat ad nauseum items that have been shown by reputable sources to be untrue. That suggests that regardless of what you were to read, however irrefutable it might be, you would continue to do that. Many of the arguments I’ve read here seem to be along those lines…whisper points, repeating things over and over founded or not. (i) Only one of the officers in SBV actually served with Kerry, briefly (even on this there seems to be some confusion). Regardless, his criticism of Kerry has been refuted by all of Kerry’s other crew members.
(ii) Moreover, it is unclear if indeed “every C.O.” he served under is part of SBV - even if that is true, his C.O.s had lots of praise for Kerry during the Vietnam era and even as recently as 1996…

On September 7, 2002, The New York Times’ current executive editor and then-columnist Bill Keller took up the issue of Kerry’s wartime films and debunked the reenactment charge, which he wrote that he believed at first: “[R]elying on a report in the usually dependable Boston Globe, I mocked him for pulling out a movie camera after a shootout in the Mekong Delta and re-enacting the exploit, as if preening for campaign commercials to come.” Simply not true, Keller found after sitting through 40 minutes of footage in Kerry’s office. Contrary to Drudge’s assertion — which apparently quoted O’Neill’s upcoming book — that Kerry would “reenact combat scenes where he would portray the hero,” Keller wrote:

The first thing to be said is that the senator’s movies are not self-aggrandizing. Mr. Kerry is hardly in the film, and never strikes so much as a heroic pose. These are the souvenirs of a 25-year-old guy sent to an exotic place on an otherworldly mission, who bought an 8-millimeter camera in the PX and shot a few hours of travelogue, most of it pretty boring if you didn’t live through it.
Keller also wrote that, according to the Swift Boat Sailors Association, “a group of veterans who manned” the kind of riverboat that Kerry commanded, “lots of enlisted men did the same.” Former Senator Max Cleland (D-GA), a strong Kerry supporter who lost three limbs in Vietnam, told Keller that he has hours of film from his service in Vietnam, which, Keller wrote, “he has had edited into a three minute meet-the-senator video.” As Media Matters for America has noted, both Patterson and O’Neill have a history of issuing false claims about Kerry. Patterson, author of the new book Reckless Disregard: How Liberal Democrats Undermine Our Military, Endanger Our Soldiers, and Jeopardize Our National Security (Regnery Publishing, 2004), severely distorted Kerry’s record on defense spending, intelligence spending, and veterans’ pay in two recent appearances on the FOX News Channel. Patterson also asserts in his book that “every terrorist” is “hoping” the Democrats win the upcoming U.S. election.

And these are quotes from LCDR George M. Elliott re: Mr. Kerry:
December 18, 1969, evaluation from LCDR George M. Elliott:
In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action LTJG Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at every opportunity. On one occasion while in tactical command of a three boat operation his units were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush. This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several enemy KIA.
LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach. He has of his own volition learned the Vietnamese language and is instrumental in the successful Vietnamese training program.
During the period of this report LTJG Kerry has been awarded the Silver Star medal, the Bronze Star medal, the Purple Heart medal (2nd and 3rd awards).

Evaluation co-signed by Joseph Streuli and George M. Elliott on January 28, 1969, and March 17, 1969, respectively:
… exhibited all of the traits of an officer in a combat environment. He frequently exhibited a high sense of imagination and judgment in planning operations against the enemy in the Mekong Delta.

In 1969, Elliott Wrote This to Describe John Kerry’s Fitness as a SWIFT Boat Commander
“In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, LTJG Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at every opportunity. On one occasion, while in tactical command of a three boat operation his units were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush. This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several KIA. LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach. He has of his own volition learned the Vietnamese language and is instrumental in the successful Vietnamese training program. During the period of this report LTJG Kerry has been awarded the Silver Star medal, the Bronze Star medal, the Purple Heart medal (2nd and 3rd awards).”[U.S. Navy, Officer Fitness Report signed by George Elliott; 18, Dec 1969]

Posted by: Jatsby at August 11, 2004 05:47 AM

The precedent has already been established.

The Repubs. sued about F911. And lost.

My guess is that they anticipated exactly what has come to pass.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2004 07:17 AM

BTW any news on the CIA hat and the secret trips to Cambodia?

Form 180. Release the Records.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2004 07:19 AM

“Lets see; there are only ten men on a Swift Boat.”

Crew of six.

The italicized portion Posted by: dickmr at August 11, 2004 05:01 AM

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at August 11, 2004 07:30 AM

jatsby,

Evidently you know nothing about military fitness reports. They are written in kind of a code. Readable to officers in the know but sounding laudatory to civilians.

Example:

“He frequently exhibited a high sense of imagination and judgment in planning operations against the enemy in the Mekong Delta.”

Translation: His ideas were Fantasy Island.

What you want to know is how his evaluation ranked with the other officers of his unit. That is the real test.

BTW you left out the part where he continually disobeyed orders.

Rumor has it that they encouraged him to get a third Purple Heart and take his act elsewhere.

Did you know that Kerry’s crew is now in his pay? Can you say Cheney Haliburton? I knew you could.

Form 180. Release ALL the Records.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2004 08:18 AM

Love the carping.

Nevertheless, this is certainly worth a good read:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005460

Just to keep things in their proper perspective. Seems to me it trumps the discussions from Folks Who Weren’t There.

The wingnut set won’t approve, predictably. It has these cool ideological blinders.

Posted by: Don at August 11, 2004 10:37 AM

Many of you folks just don?t seem to get it. As the wise and beneficent Krugman put it, in regard to to Michael Moore?s F911, lies may be used to illustrate ?elemental truths.? The SBVets incident is merely a corollary to this, where the truth is used to convey ?elemental lies.? Double plus Ungood at its worst.

Its important to keep our attention on the goal, which for the short term is getting Bush out of office. Don?t be discouraged by people who are so unsophisticated as to think that ?facts? have an objective existence, and do not realign themselves to conform to the inevitable and progressive course of history.

Lets just hope that the FEC puts a lid on the ravings of these thought criminals.

:-)

Posted by: tcobb at August 11, 2004 10:48 AM

MS: “rumor has it?”

What rumors? Yours — the one’s you seem to be starting here? Or just the other unsubstantiated ones derived elsewhere?

So he disobeyed orders? Most combat commanders on the ground (on the water, in this case) have done that at one time or another. Those unacquainted with how Combat actually works seem to believe that orders from Higher Headquarters trump the situation in front of you.

Clue: They don’t.

But as for “interpreting” the OER as meaning that Kerry was inevitably in “fantasy land” — now That’s truly imaginative on its face. Fes up here — you made that one up all on your lonesome, dincha?

Fact of the matter is, most OERs are deadly dull to read. There is no “code” out there that you are aware of, clearly. But the combination of imagination and judgement — that’s a pretty high endorsement of the actions of a junior officer. Some will have the former, but not the latter. The combination is particularly worthwhile.

They “wanted” him to get a third PH, so he would leave? You have no reason to believe that’s true. No one “wants” anyone to get a PH. It’s not that sort of medal. Nor was there any assurance that he Would leave — only that he could. Anyone could have left, under similar circumstances. And to be frank, a good many folks who found themselves eligible to leave Did leave! It was the smart play at the time. (And a good many who didn’t have three PHs found ways to leave as well. One could, for example, pay a hundred bucks and get a 6-8 week drop, if one knew precisely which senior NCO and CWO to pay off at the Group Personnel Office in Long Binh. There was also the Rotating Command ploy of senior ticket punchers — get a few months in a line unit, then bug to USARV or MACV HQ for some staff time. Really good for the career!)

Kerry’s crew left their own lives and jobs in order to campaign. They chose to do that. It’s only fair to pay them — their families still need to eat, their mortgages to be paid and their expenses covered while they undertake the current campaign for several months. They are not, after all, in quite the same personal financial condition as is Cheney — who doesn’t really Need to be paid anything at all! If Kerry did Not pay those folks, you’d be whining that he was taking advantage of them, and leaving their families destitute in the process.

Which, if you wish to compare things, is rather like the situation facing some US NG troops now overseas. Were I in your shoes, I wouldn’t carry the comparison too far. It doesn’t play out very well, when you look at it closely.

Posted by: Don at August 11, 2004 10:51 AM

“Were I in your shoes, I wouldn’t carry the comparison too far. It doesn’t play out very well, when you look at it closely.”

Good advice you’re giving to yourself there. You ought to heed it.

The italicized portion Posted by: Don at August 11, 2004 10:51 AM

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at August 11, 2004 10:57 AM

Folks Who Weren’t There don’t need to be taken seriously about events they didn’t actually witness.

T8: Swift Boat personnel who weren’t there, but attempt to make claims as though they were, are “self-styled” as to their claims. By saying that They Too were “Swift Boat Vets” and that means that they actually Know something about the specific matters under discussion is to go way beyond the bounds of credibility by wrapping themselves in their self-chosen title.

Fact of the matter is, a whole bunch of them were nowhere Near where Kerry’s boat was during the actions indicated in the citations. They have no more grounds on which to judge the Facts of the actions than you do — which is to say, None at all. Save for their self-engendered titles.

Go with the folks who actually Were there. It just works better. Every time.

Now folks — I really hate to leave y’all without adult supervision for several days, but I’m gonna be doing some Useful Political Work for a while. So I won’t be checking in, and the threads will doubtless wander off into the archives, and I shan’t be checking them thereafter regardless.

So y’all can engage in your ongoing ideological lovefest, whereby you continually reinforce each others’ beliefs that You Are Correct in Each And Every Way. You will convince no one New about anything, since you are already members of the same choir. I, meanwhile, will personally contact a whole bunch of Actual Voters — the Persuadables — in the next several days. It just seems more important than trying to hang here.

Enjoy the respite. If I’m not too busy next Monday catching up on postponed personal matters, I might check back in. Or not. Entertainment is a personal choice, and it’s a target-rich environment.

Y’all Have Fun now, y’hear!

Posted by: Don at August 11, 2004 11:02 AM

CptD: Gratuitous free advice from such as you will be received with all the respect it deserves.

Y’all have a Really Nice Day!

Posted by: Don at August 11, 2004 11:03 AM

“Go with the folks who actually Were there. It just works better. Every time.” posted by Don at August 11, 2004 11:02 AM

We do, Don. And NONE of them have your view of the situation. Moreover, NONE of them EVER brags about his service or medals or talks about his war experiences - and that includes peope we’ve known who served in World War II, Korea and Vietnam. They served, came home, and went on with life as productive, interesting people.

Posted by: Jim at August 11, 2004 11:24 AM

Don

If you take your own argument seriously then Kerry’s own testimony on atrocities in Vietnam should be dismissed wholesale and he should have probably been charged with contempt of Congress or something. After all, he wasn’t there, but you’ll defend his right to spew such claptrap.

you can’t have it both ways, it,s intellectually dishonest and morally questionable.

Chads

Posted by: Chads at August 11, 2004 12:52 PM

Chads,

What are you talking about? Don’s writings CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE that he has NEVER in his life had ANY understanding of what MORALS could possibly mean. I have also NEVER seen any post that shows he could even BEGIN to understand honesty.

Maybe there was one somewhere, but if so, I missed it.

Personally, I just ignore all “fruitcake” types. They are just “so scrambled”, you know?

Posted by: leaddog2 at August 11, 2004 01:17 PM

Can anyone on here imagine Don, with his pompous,arrogant demeanor go out and sway the general population on how to vote?
I would think the backlash from the people he talks to will probably benefit Bush!

Posted by: commander at August 11, 2004 01:42 PM

“Gratuitous free advice from such as you will be received with all the respect it deserves.”

Apparently YOUR advice ain’t all you’ve made it out to be.

The italicized portion Posted by: Don at August 11, 2004 11:03 AM

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at August 11, 2004 03:21 PM

Don, you must be the manager of the Department of Redundancy Department.

Since gratutitous means Free, what you basically said was Free free advice….

If you’re gonna use them ole’ big words, gotta expect us to look em up, eh? Once again it’s Mr Malaprop to the rescue.

Kinda like “the la brea tarpits”, if you know what I mean.

Posted by: skip at August 11, 2004 04:07 PM

or Chai tea… (sorry, I waited for a long time to use that)

Posted by: v at August 11, 2004 04:50 PM

“I say again — go with the guys who were On The Boat”

Three of them say Kerry was never in Cambodia.

Who ya gonna believe the swifties? Or the guys who were On The Boat?

I’m going with the boat guys on this one.

Form 180. Release the records

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2004 06:16 PM

Do you suppose getting money from Haliburton influenced Chenney? Of course not. He earned it long ago and this is just delayed payment.

“I say again — go with the guys who were On The Boat”

Because only men in Kerry’s pay can betrusted?

Sounds good to me.

Form 180. Release the records

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2004 06:23 PM

Many of you seem to be asking why the enlisted crewmen of Kerry’s boat would support him. Here’s a fact that many don’t know. On the day Kerry received the Silver Star. He put his crew in for medals also. 2 Bronze Stars w/combat V and 3 Navy Commendation medals w/combat V were awarded based on Kerry’s lies in addition to his Silver Star.

People, this was group medalgate! This was the most highly decorated boat in the history of the war for 1 action. It was a minor fire fight against about 20 local VC by 3 boats (18 crewmen) and about 70 South Vietnamese troops on the boats.

http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2004/08/i_take_it_back.php#c4768

Form 180. Release the records.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2004 06:28 PM

Why did Kerry run on his Vietnam record?

Because sleeping in the Senate doesn’t sound near as good as shooting a man in the back.

Form 180. Release the records.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2004 07:09 PM

This article was in the Las Vegas Sun last February:

From a February edition of the Las Vegas Sun:
Former U.S. Sen. Chic Hecht of Nevada is a staunch Republican, but he thanks his lucky stars for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.

On July 12, 1988, Hecht was attending a weekly Republican luncheon when a piece of apple lodged firmly in his throat.

Hecht stumbled out of the room, thinking he might vomit but not wanting to do it in front of his colleagues. Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., thumped his back, but Hecht quickly passed out in the hallway.

Just then, Kerry stepped off an elevator, rushed to Hecht’s side and gave him the Heimlich maneuver — four times.

The lifesaving incident made international news, and Dr. Henry Heimlich, who invented the maneuver in 1974, called Hecht to say that had Kerry intervened just 30 seconds later Hecht might have been in a vegetative state for life.

“This man gave me my life,” the 75-year-old Hecht said Thursday.

Hecht said he was amazed that Kerry acted so quickly — some people were assuming that he was having a heart attack.

“He knew exactly what to do,” he said. “But a lot of people know what to do. They just don’t size up the situation immediately.” […]

“Only in America can this happen, where he’s working against me to get me defeated and then saves my life,” Hecht said.
***

I suspect now that some here will say that A) Hecht was just plain wrong/mistaken/lying, that B) Sen. Bond actually saved Hecht’s life, or that C) Kerry wasn’t actually there, the event was fabricated.

Posted by: Jatsby at August 11, 2004 07:39 PM

I was about to respond to Don regarding the admissibility of hearsay evidence (works when Kerry’s in front of Congress, doesn’t when his former Swifties contradict him) but Chads beat me to it. I don’t believe Senator Kerry was saying “I knew people who saw atrocities.” He said he actually saw atrocities. Now which was it?

Are we to believe anyone who’s at odds with Kerry’s statements? All of the people in Boston who’ve had him cut in front of them in line and ask them “Do you know WHO I AM?” when they questioned his behavior? They’re all lying? The folks who heard him say he was the next JFK from Massachusetts the first day of his Swift boat career - they made that up? It’s a conspiracy!!

Let me ask you this (and I really don’t know the answer) are the pro-Kerry Swifties affirming his Christmas vacation in Cambodia (1968). Are they all saying “Sure, that happened.” Or has anyone bothered to ask?

Jatsby, no doubt in my mind Kerry saved Hecht’s life or at least saved him from CVS. No one is disputing that here. Try to stay on topic. My uncle Bo saved a guy with the Heimlich back in the ’80s, but that didn’t make him fit for the Presidency. It’s nice that Kerry thinks fast. But that’s another thread. This is the “Kerry twists himself further in the ground with every lie” thread.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at August 11, 2004 08:44 PM

What is the War Hero Afraid of?

Form 180. Release the records.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2004 09:44 PM

torpedo_8

I believe the Video of his Winter Soldier testimony is on line.

NPR or some such if you can believe it

What is the War Hero Afraid of?

Form 180. Release the records.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2004 10:04 PM