i'm sure the source (swiftvets) will cause many to dismiss it out-of-hand, but this is still one of the more devestating campaign ads i've seen in a while. link opens embedded WMA file. http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_video_wmv.html random followup: one of the kerry campaign's prime mantras is that Batman's service in Vietnam renders him uniquely qualified to be Commander-in-Chief. if that's true, what does that say about Robin , or for that matter, Catwoman?
I love it when you and the Swift boat veterans, most of whom didn't serve with Kerry or offer startlingly different accounts 30 years post hoc, http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp attack Kerry's war record. It's disgraceful, and it allows me to post this: Feb. 28, 1969, was a day that started out badly and got much worse. Kerry and his crewmates were given a mission to take their Swift boat up a canal off the Bay Hap River, surrounded by thick mangrove brush and many, many Vietcong. There were two ambushes. "I guess we had gotten 800 yards or 1,000 yards at the most," recalled crewmate Fred Short. "And this time, another B-40 rocket hit, and maybe a couple more. But this one was close aboard. It blew the windows out of the crew cabin. I see out of a spider hole a Vietcong stand up dressed in a loin cloth, holding a B-40 rocket." "Charlie would have lit us up like a Roman candle because we're full of fuel, we're full of ammunition," said Sandusky. Protocol at the time would be for Kerry's Swift boat to fire to shore and then take evasive action. But Kerry ordered Sandusky, his second-in-command, to drive the boat onto the beach — directly into the ambush. "I knew right away that, you know, uh-oh, we're in the doo-doo now," Sandusky said. "But, yeah, I knew — you know, John was intent. You know: 'We got to go and get this guy.' There was no way we were going to back down off the beach." Alston recalled: "I know when John Kerry told Del to beach that damn boat, this was a brand-new ball game. We wasn't running. We took it to Charlie." They saw their enemy up close, Short noted. "I would say he was so close that I could see that he had a mustache, a very weak mustache, that he was growing. I could see the mustache on his face. And things were going slow-motion now, because you feel you were, you know, this is really getting scary." Things almost went against the sailors. "He needed like, 25, 30 yards to arm that rocket, all right," Sandusky said, "and as we beached, he could not aim it at us. So he got up out of the spider hole, started running." Tommy Belodeau was manning the boat's M-60 machine gun, Short said. "Tommy in the pit tank winged him in the side of the legs as he was coming across," he said. "But the guy didn't miss stride. I mean, he did not break stride." Kerry assessed their options quickly, according to Sandusky. "John sized up the situation and realized that once Tommy had started shooting at the guy and wounded him in the leg, you know, that this was the only course of action — you know, John was going to chase this guy down and kill him. 'Cause if he didn't, we were all dead." The man was still running down a path when they got to the bank. Kerry, Belodeau and Michael McDarris, in hot pursuit, saw the Vietcong soldier. Short recalled: "The guy was getting ready to stand up with a rocket on his shoulder, coming up. And Mr. Kerry took him out … he would have been about a 30-yard shot. Which, we were dead in the water up on the bank, point blank. If he missed us, he would have to, you know — there's no way he could miss us. He could've thrown a rock and taken me out." The others agreed that it was a close call. "If this guy would have got up, and he had a clear shot at us, we would have been history," Thorson said. "Wouldn't have been no doubt about it." "If that RPG had exploded in the pilot house or anywhere in that area," Short said, "we were toast." http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cach...r+beached&hl=en Quote: In March, 1969 JimRassman was a Green Beret in Vietnam when the river boat he was riding hit a mine in the Hap River and came under heavy enemy fire from the banks. A short distance ahead, then-Navy Lt. Kerry was in command of a Swift Boat also under attack. Kerry, wounded in the arm, ordered his boat to turn around. He directed his gunners to provide suppressing fire, then moved into an exposed position on the bow to pull Rassman out of the water Quote: Reading Brinkley’s book, one wonders why Kerry’s campaign does not make more of another occasion when Kerry was sharply reprimanded for having stepped ashore. On a narrow tributary of the Duong Keo River, he and his crew came upon what looked like a deserted village. Then someone thought he saw a man running away. There was no response to a call for surrender, and Kerry took his gun and went to have a look. As he approached, forty-two Vietnamese—women, children, and old men—appeared with empty hands raised. They were in desperate shape, hungry and sick, and although Kerry received radio instructions to leave them and get on with the business of killing enemy combatants, he herded the villagers onto boats and took them to the nearest American base to receive food and medical care. “For an afternoon,” he told Brinkley, “it felt good to really be helping the Vietnamese instead of destroying their villages.” http://mitchcohen.blogspot.com/2004/07/forty-four.html What's the matter basso, are you that tapped out of ideas? I can just post random moveon.org attack ads too, but I don't see the point of it.
I take all campaign ads with a chunk of salt, and that goes for ads from both camps and places such as moveon.org, but what i don't understand is the plethora of ads, seem to be preaching to the converted instead of strategically targeting towards 1. independent 2. non-voters and 3.undecided voters. It makes those in 1, 2, 3 NOT want to vote. Are supporters from both camps so blind as to not see the viewpoint from those in the middle?
i wasn't aware that i'd coomented on the veracity of the ad, only that it was effective, as an ad. as to the larger question of why this has been brought up, it's really quite simple, kerry himself has made it the defining issue of his campaign, or perhaps you missed him "reporting for duty" at the DNC? and the cavalcade of retired officers and other vets he's presented at every campaign stop. this is all fine and dandy, and certainly kerry's service, for the most part, is admirable and should be treated as such. however, this is virtually all he talks about! where was the mention of his accomplishments during his 18 year congressional stint? apparently, banned-in-boston. kerry has invited these attacks, since he thinks his vietnam service somehow innoculates him against charges he's soft on defense. understandably then, that service is going to get scrutinized. if you, or he, can't take it perhaps you should both just moveonPac man.
Wow, straight out of Republican talking points 101. 1. While it has been a feature of his campaign, Kerry very rarely speaks personally of his exploits in Vietnam in detail -- in fact, almost never. "virtually all" he talks about? No. Go to his website and read his speeches if you don't believe me. 2. Kerry has, and does mention his congressional record, at least he did in the last article I read about him; You and I know that this argument is a canard anyway that inherently plays off the nature of a legislator-- committee chairmen get their names on bills, but that doesn't mean that nobody else ever does anything. For the record, the last press release I saw said Kerry has sponsored something like 57 bills that passed the Senate , and worked on the consensus building, glad handling, and other unquantifiable stuff. Most of the bills that he has doen the most for are Crime bills (he used to be a prosecutor, you know) and I think he had an AIDS bill get through. 3. If anybody has invited attacks about past military service by glorifying themselves, it's this man. So if you truly believe that this is a valid issue, I want you to stipulate that George W. Bush's spotty record of service, which he entered to avoid Vietnam anyway, is a valid campaign issue -- and that even the most vile propaganda about it is fair game.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...6&e=3&u=/ap/20040805/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_mccain McCain Condemns Anti-Kerry Ad 1 hour, 13 minutes ago Add Politics - AP to My Yahoo! By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer WASHINGTON - Republican Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry (news - web sites)'s military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well. AP Photo AP Photo Slideshow: John Kerry "It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me," McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press, referring to his bitter Republican primary fight with President Bush (news - web sites). The 60-second ad features Vietnam veterans who accuse the Democratic presidential nominee of lying about his decorated Vietnam War record and betraying his fellow veterans by later opposing the conflict. "When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry," one of the veterans, Larry Thurlow, says in the ad. The ad, scheduled to air in a few markets in Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin, was produced by Stevens, Reed, Curcio and Potham, the same team that produced McCain's ads in 2000. "I wish they hadn't done it," McCain said of his former advisers. "I don't know if they knew all the facts." Asked if the White House knew about the ad or helped find financing for it, McCain said, "I hope not, but I don't know. But I think the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad." Later, McCain said the Bush campaign has denied any involvement and added, "I can't believe the president would pull such a cheap stunt." The White House did not immediately address McCain's call that they repudiate the spot. Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for the Bush-Cheney campaign, said Kerry's record and statements on the war on terrorism — not his service in Vietnam — are fair game. "The Bush campaign never has and will never question John Kerry's service in Vietnam," he said. In 2000, Bush's supporters sponsored a rumor campaign against McCain in the South Carolina primary, helping Bush win the primary and the nomination. McCain's supporters have never forgiven the Bush team. McCain said that's all in the past to him, but he's speaking out against the anti-Kerry ad because he believes it's bad for the political system. "It reopens all the old wounds of the Vietnam War, which I spent the last 35 years trying to heal," he said. "I deplore this kind of politics. I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. I think George Bush served honorably in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War." McCain himself spent more than five years in a Vietnam prisoner of war camp. A bona fide war hero, McCain, like Kerry, used his war record as the foundation of his presidential campaign. The Kerry campaign has denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, saying none of the men in the ad served on the boat that Kerry commanded. The leader of the group, retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann, said none of the 13 veterans in the commercial served on Kerry's boat but rather were in other swiftboats within 50 yards of Kerry's. Jim Rassmann, an Army veteran who was saved by Kerry, said there were only six crewmates who served with Kerry on his boat. Five support his candidacy and one is deceased.
I saw the ad last night. Only person in the ad even served with Kerry. The rest is all guess work by the people involved. These guys can attack Kerry all they want but it doesn't change the fact that Kerry is a war hero. Who among these guys is trying to deny the story of Jim Rasmussen? Jim was the man who went overboard one of the swift boats and was underfire from both sides of the shore. John Kerry ordered his boat turned around. John Kerry himself went and exposed himself to fire, and reached over the edge of the boat to pull the fallen soldier back in. Not one of the people in the ad can deny that the event happened. So no matter what else they want to try and say about Kerry it doesn't matter. That incident alone is enough to make him a war hero - advantage KERRY The fact that Kerry checked the box beside the option, send to Viet Nam, and Bush checked the box that daid DON'T send to Viet Nam is something none of these guys can deny. - advantage KERRY The fact that once in Viet Nam and sitting at sea, Kerry requested a transfer into a combat situation, and that Bush while 'on duty' didn't pass or take a physical and was removed from flight status, and still doesn't have all his time with the national guard accounted for is something none of these guys can deny. - advantage KERRY.
I don't understand why McCain would have a hard time believing Bush supported this line of "dishonest and dishonorable" smear campaign, since it was Bush's people who executed the disgusting smear campaign which impugned McCain's own service and suggested he was not mentally fit, as a result of it, to lead. It's got to be killing McCain to support a man he rightly and deeply hates. basso: I haven't watched the ad. I'll take your word it's effective. So was Willie Horton. So was the disgusting anti-Cleland ad. So was McCarthyism. What's your point?
how f`ed up do your ads have to be to have leaders of your own party calling you out for airing them? "dishonest and dishonorable" indeed
so was "Daisy." my point was really, regardless of whether the ad is 'propaganda' or 'the truth', the ad exists because kerry and the democratic party jave made such a fetish of his service. one can't continually trumpet a particular qualification as making a candidate uniquly qualified, then scream that any questioning of those qualifications is unfair and dishonest.
I would think one could trumpet a qualification 24/7 and still have the right to complain in of others make ad against the qualification if the ad lacks merit. If someone makes a legitimate counter argument to the candidates trumpeted quality they shouldn't complain, but this ad doesn't fall into that category, and they have every right to complain. Most of the attacks on Kerry's service don't fall into the category of legitimate counterpoint.
It wasn't a lie. It was still found on their website as recently as less than one month ago. They might not have created it, but they hosted it so what's the difference?
