Smear Starts at White House

Avatar for car_al
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Smear Starts at White House
105
Tue, 08-24-2004 - 5:26am
Everyone I know (Republican, Democrat & Independent) thinks that the anti-Kerry smear campaign on his Vietnam War record began at the White House. Not a person, I know, believes the administration denials.

Does that matter? I think it does!

C

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 11:19pm
The vast right-wing conspiracy most certainly IS behind the venomous Swift Boat Veterans.

From your link: "Before long, he said, he had "80 to 100 people solidly lined up" to cooperate in the production of a new book."

Don't you mean to say that before long they had lined up $100,000 from John Perry, a major Bush supporter who has given more than $5.2 million (yes, MILLION) to Texas politicians and committees in just the last four years?

Backer of Anti - Kerry Ads Keeps Low Profile

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: August 27, 2004

Filed at 5:56 p.m. ET

HOUSTON (AP) -- The chief financial backer of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and its television ad challenging Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's military record is a wealthy Texas homebuilder known for his deep pockets and aversion to the limelight.

Bob J. Perry, 71, provided at least $100,000 to help start the veterans group at the urging of his friend John O'Neill, a Houston attorney who co-wrote ``Unfit for Command,'' a book which attacks Kerry's military record.

Advertisement

Perry donates generously to conservatives causes in Texas and across the nation, but public records reflect little effort to gain the ear of politicians he's helped elect.

A man of contrasts, Perry founded a home-building company that reported revenues of $420 million in 2002. But he and his wife, Doylene, live in a $662,000 five-bedroom house in Nassau Bay, a modest Houston suburb near NASA's Johnson Space Center, rather than a multimillion dollar mansion in River Oaks, Houston's wealthiest enclave.

He's given more than $5.2 million to Texas candidates and committees since 2000, according to Texans for Public Justice, a nonpartisan group that tracks campaign contributions, yet Texas' top GOP donor is rarely seen at fancy fund-raisers or hobnobbing with the political elite.

White House Senior Adviser Karl Rove told Fox television's Brit Hume this week that he's known Perry for 25 years, and he was one of the few wealthy Texans ``willing to write checks to support Republican candidates.''

Rove said he had not spoken with Perry in more than a year, and he ``certainly did not discuss with him or anybody else in the Swift Boat leadership what they're doing.''

Perry, in Mexico this week, declined an interview for this story and referred questions to recently hired spokesman Bill Miller, an Austin political consultant.

Miller said Perry's donation to the Swift Boat Veterans reflected his belief in the group's message.

``In my conversations with Bob, he just said, 'John contacted me, told me what he was trying to do, and it sounded good to me.' That's really the way he does it,'' Miller said. ``People call him and pitch him, and if he likes what he hears, he'll write a check.''

The Swift Boat ads, which ran in three swing states earlier this month, challenged Kerry's wartime service in Vietnam for which he received five medals. The ads said Kerry didn't deserve his Purple Hearts, lied to get his Bronze Star and Silver Star and unfairly branded all veterans with his 1971 congressional testimony about atrocities in Vietnam.

The Kerry campaign rebutted the ads with Navy records and witnesses who served with him. Kerry contends the group is a front for President Bush's re-election campaign.

Bush has criticized ads by outside groups of all political stripes but refused to specifically denounce the Swift boat ads.

Perry donated $46,000 to Bush's 1994 and 1998 Texas gubernatorial campaigns, and $2,000 to his current re-election effort.

Perry is the top individual contributor (but not related) to Gov. Rick Perry, Bush's successor, giving $225,000 since 2001.

Documents in the Texas archives do not show Perry ever received special board or committee appointments from the governors. Perry did write each of them about legislation he opposed.

In 1997, Perry asked Bush to oppose a title insurance bill, which passed the state Senate but never made it out of the House.

In 1999, Perry urged then-Lt. Gov. Rick Perry to block a bill he contended would discourage judges from dismissing or ruling on civil cases before trial. Rick Perry wrote back a month later that Bush had vetoed the bill.

Miller said Perry considers Rick Perry a friend, but they seldom see each other and don't talk often.

Bob Perry ``doesn't come to Austin, doesn't do social events or political events,'' Miller said. ``Just like when O'Neill called him up -- he's not incommunicado, but he's not a schmoozer at all.''

Perry was born 50 miles south of Fort Worth in a farming and ranching area.

His father was a teacher and later became dean of students at Baylor University, where Perry studied history. Perry taught high school after graduating from Baylor in 1954, but in 1968 he switched professions and established Perry Homes. The private Houston-based company is now one of the largest builders of homes and townhouses in Texas.

In 1978, former Texas Republican Gov. Bill Clements asked Perry to help raise money for his first successful gubernatorial campaign.

Since then, Perry's donations have grown.

``I have been fortunate to gain more financial strength in recent years, and I made a decision to be more involved in campaigns that I think are important,'' Perry told the Houston Chronicle in a rare 2002 interview.

In the 2002 election cycle, Perry was the state's largest individual contributor to the Texas Republican Party ($905,000) and to the campaigns of Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst ($115,000) and Attorney General Greg Abbott, who got $387,500 from Perry and $150,000 from Perry's wife.

Since 2000, Perry has also given to political groups known as 527s after a provision of law authorizing them. Along with Swift Boat, he gave $165,000 to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's Texans for a Republican Majority and $105,000 to the Texas Association of Business.

A Texas grand jury is investigating whether those two groups broke state campaign finance laws when they funneled $2.5 million in corporate contributions to Republican state House candidates during the 2002 election.

Perry's donations this election cycle include $10,000 to the pro-Republican Club for Growth and at least $19,250 to federal candidates and party committees, according the Center for Public Integrity, which tracks contributions.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Veterans-Group-Perry.html

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 11:23pm


No, I did not say he was the first to bring it up. I said

"Kerry, on the other hand, jumped right in alongside Bush's critics"

All of the Bush accusations have since been proven false-the only one still hanging out there is that he may have missed a physical exam needed to fly a certain airplane that was no longer being flown. In any case, he received an honorable discharge. But the point is, why is it okay for Kerry to question Bush's service, but not okay for men who served with Kerry to question his? Why are the Bush questions valid questions and the Kerry questions "smears"?



And the fact that someone may have blatantly lied in testimony before Congress in a deeply divisive and crucial matter would not have all that much importance to you in hiring someone? The fact that someone may have grossly exaggerated their military service is not improtant in hiring someone to be the commander in chief of the military? I'm not even saying he did, I'm just saying, aren't these important questions that have been raised, shouldn't we get to the bottom of them rather than just attacking the people raising them?

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 11:30pm


Yes, of course that's true, because they do not want to see Kerry as the commander in chief of our armed forces. If they are telling the truth, who could blame them?



So you're saying they're lying, just saying what they've been told to say? Sorry, I give our decorated veterans a little more credit than that. Truthfully my guess is that there is probably some exaggeration going on on both sides, but I do believe these men have every right to their opinions. If what they are saying is false Kerry has every right to factually refute it. I don't understand why instead of doing that he's trying to silence them. He won't even join Bush and McCain in trying to eliminate the 527's from the process-why? Because most of the money raised (by George Soros, mainly) is benefitting Kerry. If he really wanted these ads stopped he's be joining in the legal process to stop them. Bottom line is, he wants ads critical of him stopped but not those critical of Bush.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 11:37pm


Thank you for posting that. I think some people just don't understand how truly hurt and angry a lot of vets are over what Kerry and his ilk came back and did to them-to their reputations, to the honor they deserved for their bravery-just like today with Abu Ghraib he tried to make the vile actions of a few horrible people look like the government sanctioned norm-too many veterans know that's not the truth, and it's no wonder Kerry's touting of his service rubs so many the wrong way.



Isn't that the truth! Even the most liberal columnists wrote that Moore's movie was full of lies-where was Kerry's condemnation of that film? Why has Kerry still to this day NEVER condemned the disgusting rhetoric at the multi-million dollar celebrity event which he claimed represented "the heart and soul of America"?

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 11:43pm


Again, where's the evidence that Bush had anything to do with this? Why do you guys only believe in free speech when it's speech you agree with? I admit, it would have been wise for Bush to say or do something in that moment, but the fact that he didn't neither proves nor even implies that he sanctioned or approved of what was being said. Perhaps he just isn't that quick on his feet, as he himself has admitted. I'm not trying to blindly defend Bush's every action, I just don't like the idea of baseless accusations being made. If any proof ever comes out that Bush pushed for these ads or involved himself in the creation of a 527 (and by that I mean had personal knowledge, not evidence that some secretary who used to volunteer for the Bush campaign in Wyoming used to date one of the swiftboat vets in 1972), I'll be the first to say he was wrong to do so. I haven't seen any yet.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
Sat, 08-28-2004 - 12:34am
Just because I never went to war, doesn't mean I haven't been affected by war. I have been. My father, brother, uncles, childhood friends, and husband (now deceased) all went to war. I believe I have the right to discuss war & the people who serve in them just as much as anybody.



< Your words make it clear you have never been in a war. Those of us who have not have no right to criticise those who were. >

Avatar for car_al
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sat, 08-28-2004 - 4:23pm
Thanks, although this isn't from his testimony. Also, I see this as an indictment of US military policy in Vietnam, not as an accusation against fellow servicemen. He was saying that he was as guilty as everyone else in following these orders, but his indictment is for "the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."

C

Avatar for car_al
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sat, 08-28-2004 - 4:32pm
Fair enough, but his indictment was always against US policy in Vietnam, not against his fellow servicemen.

When his words are taken out of context, which you have seen happen here on this board and on another that you and I post to, it's understandable that some of his fellow servicemen would be angry with him.

C

Avatar for car_al
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sat, 08-28-2004 - 7:50pm
Not the term I would use, but I do have to agree with Metrochick's post.

C

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Sat, 08-28-2004 - 9:08pm
<>

I couldn't agree more. I've been arguing this for weeks and always come up against people who focus on just one paragraph of his congressional testimony. I can understand why some veterans were hurt by his statement (although I still think they saw Kerry standing with "hippies" and were predisposed to take it the wrong way) but overall, Kerry was calling the leadership out to be accountable for the terrible mission they asked our troops to carry out ...and for what? His beef was always with the leadership.

Pages