New swiftvet ad, Kerry in big trouble!
Find a Conversation
New swiftvet ad, Kerry in big trouble!
| Fri, 08-20-2004 - 11:12am |
Kerry's in big trouble now... the latest swiftvet ad (ad number 2) is if anything more devastating against Kerry than the first...
Check it out at http://a1281.v125028.c12502.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/1281/12502/v0001/eaglepub.download.akamai.com/12502/sellout.wmv

Pages
Almost a year ago, on the second anniversary of 9/11, I predicted "an ugly, bitter campaign - probably the nastiest of modern American history." The reasons I gave then still apply. President Bush has no positive achievements to run on. Yet his inner circle cannot afford to see him lose: if he does, the shroud of secrecy will be lifted, and the public will learn the truth about cooked intelligence, profiteering, politicization of homeland security and more.
But recent attacks on John Kerry have surpassed even my expectations. There's no mystery why. Mr. Kerry isn't just a Democrat who might win: his life story challenges Mr. Bush's attempts to confuse tough-guy poses with heroism, and bombast with patriotism.
One of the wonders of recent American politics has been the ability of Mr. Bush and his supporters to wrap their partisanship in the flag. Through innuendo and direct attacks by surrogates, men who assiduously avoided service in Vietnam, like Dick Cheney (five deferments), John Ashcroft (seven deferments) and George Bush (a comfy spot in the National Guard, and a mysterious gap in his records), have questioned the patriotism of men who risked their lives and suffered for their country: John McCain, Max Cleland and now John Kerry.
How have they been able to get away with it? The answer is that we have been living in what Roger Ebert calls "an age of Rambo patriotism." As the carnage and moral ambiguities of Vietnam faded from memory, many started to believe in the comforting clichés of action movies, in which the tough-talking hero is always virtuous and the hand-wringing types who see complexities and urge the hero to think before acting are always wrong, if not villains.
After 9/11, Mr. Bush had a choice: he could deal with real threats, or he could play Rambo. He chose Rambo. Not for him the difficult, frustrating task of tracking down elusive terrorists, or the unglamorous work of protecting ports and chemical plants from possible attack: he wanted a dramatic shootout with the bad guy. And if you asked why we were going after this particular bad guy, who hadn't attacked America and wasn't building nuclear weapons - or if you warned that real wars involve costs you never see in the movies - you were being unpatriotic.
As a domestic political strategy, Mr. Bush's posturing worked brilliantly. As a strategy against terrorism, it has played right into Al Qaeda's hands. Thirty years after Vietnam, American soldiers are again dying in a war that was sold on false pretenses and creates more enemies than it kills.
It should come as no surprise, then, that Mr. Bush - who must defend the indefensible - has turned to those who still refuse to face the truth about Vietnam.
All the credible evidence, from military records to the testimony of those who served with Mr. Kerry, confirms his wartime heroism. Why, then, are some veterans willing to join the smear campaign? Because they are angry about his later statements against the war. Yet making those statements was itself a heroic act - and what he said then rings truer than ever.
The young John Kerry spoke of leaders who sent others to their deaths because they wanted to seem tough, then "left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude." Fifteen months after George Bush strutted around in his flight suit, more and more Americans are echoing Gen. Anthony Zinni, who received a standing ovation from an audience of Marine and Navy officers when he talked about the debacle in Iraq and said of those who served in Vietnam: "We heard the garbage and the lies, and we saw the sacrifice. I ask you, is it happening again?"
Mr. Kerry also spoke of the moral cost of an ill-conceived war - of the atrocities soldiers find themselves committing when they can't tell friend from foe. Two words: Abu Ghraib.
Let's hope that this latest campaign of garbage and lies - initially financed by a Texas Republican close to Karl Rove, and running an ad featuring an "independent" veteran who turns out to have served on a Bush campaign committee - leads to a backlash against Mr. Bush. If it doesn't, here's the message we'll be sending to Americans who serve their country: If you tell the truth, your courage and sacrifice count for nothing.
Written by By PAUL KRUGMAN, New York Times, August 24th
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/24/opinion/24krugman.html?hp
The New York Times 2004
The Winter Soldier Investigations probably had very little, if anything, to do with the ending of the conflict in VietNam. His testimony did have a great deal to do with the torture of American POW's being held at the Hanoi Hilton, however, which many veterans will not forgive Kerry for.
Independent investigations conducted after the hearings found that this was the case. You wont read about this in the NYT however.
He debated (and won the debate mind you) Kerry on Dick Cavett 33 years ago, and has not said a public word since.
Now that Kerry is running for President, O'Neil has come forward to tell his side of the story to the public.
If Kerry is so right about what happened, then why is Kerry the one that has changed his story on more than one of the events seared into his memory from VietNam? Please answer that one (if you are able)
Yeah, he is a jerk. How dare he indescriminently besmirch the reputation of every vet serving in Vietnam? How dare he not apologize to the veterans who returned to be spat on, called rapists, & killers even when he has admitted that the hearsay he reapeated to the nation has been discredited because it was based on the lies of people who were never in combat or never even in the military.
Renee ~~~
John McCain forgave Kerry and the others who tesified. Hanging on to anger does not serve anyone. Kerry showed courage in standing up and telling the truth.
What happened in Vietnam is no different than what happened at Abu Ghraib: "Sadism at Abu Ghraib" - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5807013/:
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon’s most senior civilian and military officials share a portion of blame for creating conditions that led to the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq, according to a report released Tuesday by an independent panel of civilian defense experts.
The findings were presented at a Pentagon news conference by James Schlesinger, the former secretary of defense who headed a four-person commission created last May by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
“There was chaos at Abu Ghraib,” Schlesinger said, and “sadism on the night shift.” The report said the direct responsibility lay with commanders in the field rather than in Washington. Pentagon leaders, however, had an indirect role.
The mistreatment of prisoners, described by the commission as “acts of brutality and purposeless sadism,” would have been avoided with proper training, leadership and oversight, it said.
Anyone who can not admit that some members of our military commit atrocities, are wearing blinders!
Kerry had the courage to enlist and serve in Vietnam. John Kerry had the courage to return from Vietnam and to stand up and tell the truth about Vietnam.
George W Bush could not even manage to show up for National Guard Service Stateside.
How dare you besmich a true American Hero in the name of a president who stole the election, took us to war over OIL and perpetuated lies about WMD's. Where are the WMD's. With Bush missing military records, no doubt.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5807013/
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon’s most senior civilian and military officials share a portion of blame for creating conditions that led to the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq, according to a report released Tuesday by an independent panel of civilian defense experts.
The findings were presented at a Pentagon news conference by James Schlesinger, the former secretary of defense who headed a four-person commission created last May by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
“There was chaos at Abu Ghraib,” Schlesinger said, and “sadism on the night shift.” The report said the direct responsibility lay with commanders in the field rather than in Washington. Pentagon leaders, however, had an indirect role.
The mistreatment of prisoners, described by the commission as “acts of brutality and purposeless sadism,” would have been avoided with proper training, leadership and oversight, it said.
AMEN TO THAT!
Bush is just a spoiled rich kid who grew up in Connecticut and now claims to be a cowboy. He has no idea of the real effects of war only what he sees in movies (because we all know how proud he is of the fact that he doesn't read the paper!).
IGNORANCE IS TRULY BLISS...
Edited 8/24/2004 4:37 pm ET ET by nisa77
Pages