MoveOn Ads Okay; Swift Boat Ads Not Okay, Kerry Campaign Says

<snip>
Debra Deshong of the Kerry campaign told Fox News there's a difference between MoveOn.org and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: "MoveOn.org is an independent organization that existed well before the Kerry campaign," she said, whereas Swift Boat Veterans for Truth "is not an independent group."

Deshong invoked Friday's New York Times article as proof: "And in today's New York Times, it details exactly all the ties this group (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) has to the Bush White House."

Deshong condemned Bush for not telling Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to stop running their ad. (Swift Boats say it wouldn't matter what Bush said -- see related story)

"Again, we (the Kerry campaign) have nothing to do with these independent ads, like MoveOn.org. That is an independent organization that existed well before the Kerry campaign. They have every right to be running what they are under the campaign finance laws." According to Deshong, "This is about the Swift Boat Vets that are running dishonorable ads that Bush refuses to condemn."

<snip>

Nah, nah, nah. I'm invisible and you're not!

What childish bullshit these liberals are spewing. I did not see any of them stand up and say F-911 was a load of crap, just that  - "You  really should see it , whether you are anti - Bush or not."

Well, I say let them choke on it! I'm sending another $100 to the Swifters today!!

The old "Double Standard"...... just what you would expect from a Narcissistic elitist like Kerry.

Quoted: MoveOn Ads Okay; Swift Boat Ads Not Okay, Kerry Campaign Says <snip> Debra Deshong of the Kerry campaign told Fox News there's a difference between MoveOn.org and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: "MoveOn.org is an independent organization that existed well before the Kerry campaign," she said, whereas Swift Boat Veterans for Truth "is not an independent group." Deshong invoked Friday's New York Times article as proof: "And in today's New York Times, it details exactly all the ties this group (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) has to the Bush White House." Deshong condemned Bush for not telling Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to stop running their ad. (Swift Boats say it wouldn't matter what Bush said -- see related story) "Again, we (the Kerry campaign) have nothing to do with these independent ads, like MoveOn.org. That is an independent organization that existed well before the Kerry campaign. They have every right to be running what they are under the campaign finance laws." According to Deshong, "This is about the Swift Boat Vets that are running dishonorable ads that Bush refuses to condemn." <snip>

It used to be if you can't beat them, join them. Now it seems like it;s if you can;t beat them, cry about it till somone makes them stop.

[kerry campaign]WAAAAAAA SOMONE IS SAYING BAD THINGS ABOUT US MAKE THE BAD MEN STOP!!!!! WAAAAAA[/kerry campaign]

"Why yes, my shit smells just like Lillys Of The Valley. Yours on the other hand smells just like doo-doo..."

Bush has not only stated he will not mention Kerry's "service" record, but that he doesn't like the swiftboat ads that do.

I'd like to see their proof that W is somehow involved with these guys.

As usual, a bunch of cry baby socialist fucktards.

Quoted: Bush has not only stated he will not mention Kerry's "service" record, but that he doesn't like the swiftboat ads that do. I'd like to see their proof that W is somehow involved with these guys. As usual, a bunch of cry baby socialist fucktards.

And if you believe that I have WMD's in Iraq for you. Oh right..they still haven't found those yet.

Quoted: As usual, a bunch of cry baby socialist fucktards.

+1

If that statement isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is. Hell, anyone could see through that weak attempt at a response. What she is saying is that it's ok as long as the negative message is in their favor. But if it isn't, then it's wrong.

The Swiftboat folks are just as independent as MoveOn.org. Neither are under direct control of Bush or Kerry. What we have here is a case of these assholes getting a dose of what they've been dishing out for months. While they love to dish it, they can't take it. Hey, it's ok to compare Bush to Hitler and call him a war criminal. But if something is said about Kerry's little innocent, sweet ass, they cry like the fucking babies they are. Hell, even the morning news anchor on CBS recognized this double standard and points it out. "Isn't the Kerry supporters such as MoveOn.org using the same exact tactics they are now criticizing"? Hmmmm.

As I've said before and will repeat, Kerry's irrational behavior that will show through as he attempts (in a rather pathetic manner that is) to defend himself, will in the end be far more damaging than the ads. Watch and see. People will see him for what he is. This is the best thing that can come from this. And his supporters are appearing just as pannicked and irrational. Meanwhile, Bush has remained the same Bush, never rattled, never waivering.  This is a live, day to day demonstration in the differences between a true leader capable of handling the job and a wannabe scumbag who has never accomplished anything in his decades of political time in office.

Now, grab the popcorn, sit back and watch these idiots self-destruct yet again. These liberal asshats just do not get it. They always end up cutting their own throats just before the election. In the past 2 hours they have shown the world that their hypocrisy knows no bounds to quote Doc Holliday and they have even endorsed and recommending censoring this book! That's right, our ever vigilant, patriotic, tolerant, lovable liberals want to now add the 1st Amendment to the 2nd, and an ever growing list of other amendments that isn't convienient for them to the list of things to ban! Is self-destruction not a beautiful thing to see (when liberals are involved especially!) Nobody whines and cries like a liberal who is just handed his career dissipation notice! In the words of Roscoe P. Coltrain, "I love it, I love it., I love it.....goo goo goo".

Quoted: Quoted: Bush has not only stated he will not mention Kerry's "service" record, but that he doesn't like the swiftboat ads that do. I'd like to see their proof that W is somehow involved with these guys. As usual, a bunch of cry baby socialist fucktards. And if you believe that I have WMD's in Iraq for you. Oh right..they still haven't found those yet.

omega-metroid=

Quoted: MoveOn Ads Okay; Swift Boat Ads Not Okay, Kerry Campaign Says <snip> Debra Deshong of the Kerry campaign told Fox News there's a difference between MoveOn.org and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: "MoveOn.org is an independent organization that existed well before the Kerry campaign," she said, whereas Swift Boat Veterans for Truth "is not an independent group." Deshong invoked Friday's New York Times article as proof: "And in today's New York Times, it details exactly all the ties this group (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) has to the Bush White House." Deshong condemned Bush for not telling Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to stop running their ad. (Swift Boats say it wouldn't matter what Bush said -- see related story) "Again, we (the Kerry campaign) have nothing to do with these independent ads, like MoveOn.org. That is an independent organization that existed well before the Kerry campaign. They have every right to be running what they are under the campaign finance laws." According to Deshong, "This is about the Swift Boat Vets that are running dishonorable ads that Bush refuses to condemn." <snip>

The above article is bit disengenuous:

Kerry Condemns Anti-Bush Ad
'This should be a campaign of issues, not insults,' the Democrat says after MoveOn attacks president's Air National Guard record.

by Richard Simon

WASHINGTON — Sen. John F. Kerry took a cue from Sen. John McCain on Tuesday and denounced a television ad by one of his allies attacking President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard.

In the latest twist in an ongoing debate about military credentials, Kerry condemned the new ad by the MoveOn political action committee, even though it was produced in response to an ad questioning Kerry's Vietnam War record.

"This should be a campaign of issues, not insults," Kerry said in a written statement.

Kerry called the ad "inappropriate" after McCain (R-Ariz.), a former Vietnam prisoner of war, criticized the MoveOn commercial. The 30-second ad accuses Bush of using family connections to avoid the Vietnam War.

McCain, who is popular with independents, is campaigning for Bush but has come to Kerry's defense against Republican attacks on the candidate's military record. He recently criticized an anti-Kerry ad that featured Vietnam veterans as "dishonest" and "dishonorable."

Although MoveOn, an independent liberal group, came to Kerry's aid with a counterattack ad, the Democrat said he agreed with McCain that it was over the top.

But the executive director of MoveOn's political action committee said his group had no plans to pull the spot, which began running Tuesday in three battleground states.

And a Bush campaign spokesman didn't see Kerry's action as doing the president any favor, saying the Massachusetts senator's condemnation of the anti-Bush ad "reeks of hypocrisy."

During a news conference arranged by the Kerry campaign earlier in the day, some supporters repeated the central allegation in the MoveOn ad — that Bush used his father's influence as a congressman to get him into the Texas Air National Guard rather than serve in Vietnam.

"John Kerry condemns the ad on one hand and then his campaign's surrogates go out and echo the baseless charges that appear in the ad," said Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt. "It's typical John Kerry: Say one thing, do another."

The MoveOn ad features footage of a young Bush in a National Guard uniform, with the announcer saying that Bush "used his father to get into the National Guard."

The spot also criticizes the president for failing to condemn the ad attacking Kerry, "a man who asked to go to Vietnam."

The MoveOn ad was produced in response to the anti-Kerry ad by a group calling itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The ad featured 13 veterans who served in close proximity to Kerry in Vietnam accusing him of lying about his military service.

The Swift boat group is heavily funded by Robert J. Perry, a Texas homebuilder and big GOP political donor.

The group said it stopped running its anti-Kerry commercial last week after exhausting its $500,000 buy. But Mike Russell, a spokesman for the group, said the ad had generated more than $330,000 in contributions, and the group was examining "whether we're going to extend the buy … or do some other things."

The ad angered the Kerry campaign because the Democratic candidate had made his volunteer service in Vietnam and his combat experience a centerpiece of his campaign to show that he was better equipped to be commander in chief than Bush.

Though the anti-Kerry ad is no longer on the air, Eli Pariser, executive director of the MoveOn PAC, defended his decision to continue the anti-Bush TV spot.

"After refusing to condemn his allies' baseless attack on Kerry's war record, we believe the nation has a right to know whether George Bush showed up for service or not," he said. Pariser contended that it was appropriate to run the ad until the Bush campaign "rejects these kinds of smear campaigns."

The MoveOn ad is running in the same swing states of Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin as the anti-Kerry ad and on some cable TV stations nationally. The ad buy is about $200,000.

Earlier Tuesday, a group of Kerry supporters, including retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark and some of Kerry's Navy crewmates, condemned the anti-Kerry ad and called on Bush to disavow it.

The president has not denounced the ad, but in an interview on "Larry King Live" last week, he called Kerry's military service "noble." Bush campaign officials said the president had called for the end to all ads by "soft-money" groups — those not directly involved with the respective campaigns.

"The president has made clear that the campaign has never questioned John Kerry's military service and never will," Schmidt said.

Retired Navy Adm. Stansfield Turner, a former CIA director who attended the Kerry campaign news conference, said of Kerry and Bush: "One of them saw combat…. One of them used his father's influence to get into the Air National Guard to avoid going to war."

Among those condemning the anti-Kerry ad was Fred Short, a gunner's mate and a member of Kerry's crew, who said: "If it wasn't for John Kerry, my name would be on a wall."

McCain's denunciation of the ad was posted prominently at the Kerry campaign news conference. The campaign also handed out an inch-thick book featuring a picture of a young Kerry in Navy uniform on its cover and containing the candidate's military records.

Neil Berch, a political scientist at West Virginia University, said he did not expect the anti-Kerry ad to carry too much weight in his state. In the end, he said, voters would "go with the guys who were on the boat with Kerry."

Quoted: Bush has not only stated he will not mention Kerry's "service" record, but that he doesn't like the swiftboat ads that do. I'd like to see their proof that W is somehow involved with these guys. As usual, a bunch of cry baby socialist fucktards.

I am not saying this constitutes proof of any kind, but it does address your concern above regarding "their proof":
http://nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html?hp

(Yes, it is a NY Times article, but worth reading if only to understand "their proof")

This must REALLY be starting to worry these fucktards.

GOOD!

What a bunch of pussy asshats.  I look forward to your coming meltdown on Election Night.  The DU'ers should be committing mass sepuku and I will be LAUGHING MY FUCKING ASS OFF.

Quoted: The above article is bit disengenuous: Kerry Condemns Anti-Bush Ad 'This should be a campaign of issues, not insults,' the Democrat says after MoveOn attacks president's Air National Guard record.

kinaed=

kinaed if you will post a link to the original source of the "Kerry Condemns Anti-Bush Ad" and that source turns out not to be a Liberal-Left Rag I will consider retracting my kinaed= statement .....until that time it stands.

Quoted: Quoted: Bush has not only stated he will not mention Kerry's "service" record, but that he doesn't like the swiftboat ads that do. I'd like to see their proof that W is somehow involved with these guys. As usual, a bunch of cry baby socialist fucktards. I am not saying this constitutes proof of any kind, but it does address your concern above regarding "their proof": http://nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html?hp (Yes, it is a NY Times article, but worth reading if only to understand "their proof")

You have to be a subscriber to view that nytimes article............only a Liberal-Lefty would have such a subscription... so I am forced to restate my original conclusion that kinaed =

Quoted: Quoted: The above article is bit disengenuous: Kerry Condemns Anti-Bush Ad 'This should be a campaign of issues, not insults,' the Democrat says after MoveOn attacks president's Air National Guard record. kinaed= kinaed if you will post a link to the original source of the "Kerry Condemns Anti-Bush Ad" and that source turns out not to be a Liberal-Left Rag I will consider retracting my kinaed= statement .....until that time it stands.

I performed a google search "kerry condemns moveon.org." One of thfirst hits was http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0818-03.htm, but there are many others, inlcuding:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/archive/bull040818b.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-17-war-records_x.htm
http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/a/p/1131/8-17-2004/20040817141507_068.html

I first learned of the condemnation of moveon by Kerry on FOX, hardly a left-wing news organization.

BTW, please keep the emotion and personal attacks out of the discussion.

Quoted: This must REALLY be starting to worry these fucktards. GOOD! What a bunch of pussy asshats.  I look forward to your coming meltdown on Election Night.  The DU'ers should be committing mass sepuku and I will be LAUGHING MY FUCKING ASS OFF.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads are REALLY hurting the Kerry campaign (along with the book "Unfit for Command") and the Kerry campaign is absolutely desperate to stop it.  They tried ignoring it at first, and that didn't work, so they are trying all they can do to stop it.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Bush has not only stated he will not mention Kerry's "service" record, but that he doesn't like the swiftboat ads that do. I'd like to see their proof that W is somehow involved with these guys. As usual, a bunch of cry baby socialist fucktards. I am not saying this constitutes proof of any kind, but it does address your concern above regarding "their proof": http://nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html?hp (Yes, it is a NY Times article, but worth reading if only to understand "their proof") You have to be a subscriber to view that nytimes article............only a Liberal-Lefty would have such a subscription... so I am forced to restate my original conclusion that kinaed =

Keeping one's emotions in check is the hallmark of an objective person.

If you cannot bring yourself to "subscribe" I will do you a favor:

Friendly Fire: The Birth of an Anti-Kerry Ad
By KATE ZERNIKE and JIM RUTENBERG

After weeks of taking fire over veterans' accusations that he had lied about his Vietnam service record to win medals and build a political career, Senator John Kerry shot back yesterday, calling those statements categorically false and branding the people behind them tools of the Bush campaign.

His decision to take on the group directly was a measure of how the group that calls itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has catapulted itself to the forefront of the presidential campaign. It has advanced its cause in a book, in a television advertisement and on cable news and talk radio shows, all in an attempt to discredit Mr. Kerry's war record, a pillar of his campaign.

How the group came into existence is a story of how veterans with longstanding anger about Mr. Kerry's antiwar statements in the early 1970's allied themselves with Texas Republicans.

Mr. Kerry called them "a front for the Bush campaign" - a charge the campaign denied.

A series of interviews and a review of documents show a web of connections to the Bush family, high-profile Texas political figures and President Bush's chief political aide, Karl Rove.

Records show that the group received the bulk of its initial financing from two men with ties to the president and his family - one a longtime political associate of Mr. Rove's, the other a trustee of the foundation for Mr. Bush's father's presidential library. A Texas publicist who once helped prepare Mr. Bush's father for his debate when he was running for vice president provided them with strategic advice. And the group's television commercial was produced by the same team that made the devastating ad mocking Michael S. Dukakis in an oversized tank helmet when he and Mr. Bush's father faced off in the 1988 presidential election.

The strategy the veterans devised would ultimately paint John Kerry the war hero as John Kerry the "baby killer" and the fabricator of the events that resulted in his war medals. But on close examination, the accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' prove to be riddled with inconsistencies. In many cases, material offered as proof by these veterans is undercut by official Navy records and the men's own statements.

Several of those now declaring Mr. Kerry "unfit" had lavished praise on him, some as recently as last year.

In an unpublished interview in March 2003 with Mr. Kerry's authorized biographer, Douglas Brinkley, provided by Mr. Brinkley to The New York Times, Roy F. Hoffmann, a retired rear admiral and a leader of the group, allowed that he had disagreed with Mr. Kerry's antiwar positions but said, "I am not going to say anything negative about him." He added, "He's a good man."

In a profile of the candidate that ran in The Boston Globe in June 2003, Mr. Hoffmann approvingly recalled the actions that led to Mr. Kerry's Silver Star: "It took guts, and I admire that."

George Elliott, one of the Vietnam veterans in the group, flew from his home in Delaware to Boston in 1996 to stand up for Mr. Kerry during a tough re-election fight, declaring at a news conference that the action that won Mr. Kerry a Silver Star was "an act of courage." At that same event, Adrian L. Lonsdale, another Vietnam veteran now speaking out against Mr. Kerry, supported him with a statement about the "bravado and courage of the young officers that ran the Swift boats."

"Senator Kerry was no exception," Mr. Lonsdale told the reporters and cameras assembled at the Charlestown Navy Yard. "He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers."

Those comments echoed the official record. In an evaluation of Mr. Kerry in 1969, Mr. Elliott, who was one of his commanders, ranked him as "not exceeded" in 11 categories, including moral courage, judgment and decisiveness, and "one of the top few" - the second-highest distinction - in the remaining five. In written comments, he called Mr. Kerry "unsurpassed," "beyond reproach" and "the acknowledged leader in his peer group."

The Admiral Calls

It all began last winter, as Mr. Kerry was wrapping up the Democratic nomination. Mr. Lonsdale received a call at his Massachusetts home from his old commander in Vietnam, Mr. Hoffmann, asking if he had seen the new biography of the man who would be president.

Mr. Hoffmann had commanded the Swift boats during the war from a base in Cam Ranh Bay and advocated a search-and-destroy campaign against the Vietcong - the kind of tactic Mr. Kerry criticized when he was a spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War in 1971. Shortly after leaving the Navy in 1978, he was issued a letter of censure for exercising undue influence on cases in the military justice system.

Both Mr. Hoffmann and Mr. Lonsdale had publicly lauded Mr. Kerry in the past. But the book, Mr. Brinkley's "Tour of Duty," while it burnished Mr. Kerry's reputation, portrayed the two men as reckless leaders whose military approach had led to the deaths of countless sailors and innocent civilians. Several Swift boat veterans compared Mr. Hoffmann to the bloodthirsty colonel in the film "Apocalypse Now" - the one who loves the smell of Napalm in the morning.

The two men were determined to set the record, as they saw it, straight.

"It was the admiral who started it and got the rest of us into it," Mr. Lonsdale said.

Mr. Hoffmann's phone calls led them to Texas and to John E. O'Neill, who at one point commanded the same Swift boat in Vietnam, and whose mission against him dated to 1971, when he had been recruited by the Nixon administration to debate Mr. Kerry on "The Dick Cavett Show."

Mr. O'Neill, who pressed his charges against Mr. Kerry in numerous television appearances Thursday, had spent the 33 years since he debated Mr. Kerry building a successful law practice in Houston, intermingling with some of the state's most powerful Republicans and building an impressive client list. Among the companies he represented was Falcon Seaboard, the energy firm founded by the current lieutenant governor of Texas, David Dewhurst, a central player in the Texas redistricting plan that has positioned state Republicans to win more Congressional seats this fall.

Mr. O'Neill said during one of several interviews that he had come to know two of his biggest donors, Harlan Crow and Bob J. Perry, through longtime social and business contacts.

Mr. Perry, who has given $200,000 to the group, is the top donor to Republicans in the state, according to Texans for Public Justice, a nonpartisan group that tracks political donations. He donated $46,000 to President Bush's campaigns for governor in 1994 and 1998. In the 2002 election, the group said, he donated nearly $4 million to Texas candidates and political committees.

Mr. Rove, Mr. Bush's top political aide, recently said through a spokeswoman that he and Mr. Perry were longtime friends, though he said they had not spoken for at least a year. Mr. Rove and Mr. Perry have been associates since at least 1986, when they both worked on the gubernatorial campaign of Bill Clements.

Mr. O'Neill said he had known Mr. Perry for 30 years. "I've represented many of his friends,'' Mr. O'Neill said. Mr. Perry did not respond to requests for comment.

Mr. O'Neill said he had also known Mr. Crow for 30 years, through mutual friends. Mr. Crow, the seventh-largest donor to Republicans in the state according to the Texans for Public Justice, has donated nowhere near as much money as Mr. Perry to the Swift boat group. His family owns one of the largest diversified commercial real estate companies in the nation, the Trammell Crow Company, and has given money to Mr. Bush and his father throughout their careers. He is listed as a trustee of the George Bush Presidential Library Foundation.

One of his law partners, Margaret Wilson, became Mr. Bush's general counsel when he was governor of Texas and followed him to the White House as deputy counsel for the Department of Commerce, according to her biography on the law firm's Web site.

Another partner, Tex Lezar, ran on the Republican ticket with Mr. Bush in 1994, as lieutenant governor. They were two years apart at Yale, and Mr. Lezar worked for the attorney general's office in the Reagan administration. Mr. Lezar, who died last year, was married to Merrie Spaeth, a powerful public relations executive who has helped coordinate the efforts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

In 2000, Ms. Spaeth was spokeswoman for a group that ran $2 million worth of ads attacking Senator John McCain's environmental record and lauding Mr. Bush's in crucial states during their fierce primary battle. The group, calling itself Republicans for Clean Air, was founded by a prominent Texas supporter of Mr. Bush, Sam Wyly.

Ms. Spaeth had been a communications official in the Reagan White House, where the president's aides had enough confidence in her to invite her to help prepare George Bush for his vice-presidential debate in 1984. She says she is also a close friend of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, a client of Mr. Rove's. Ms. Spaeth said in an interview that the one time she had ever spoken to Mr. Rove was when Ms. Hutchison was running for the Texas treasurer's office in 1990.

When asked if she had ever visited the White House during Mr. Bush's tenure, Ms. Spaeth initially said that she had been there only once, in 2002, when Kenneth Starr gave her a personal tour. But this week Ms. Spaeth acknowledged that she had spent an hour in the Old Executive Office Building, part of the White House complex, in the spring of 2003, giving Mr. Bush's chief economic adviser, Stephen Friedman, public speaking advice. Asked if it was possible that she had worked with other administration officials, Ms. Spaeth said, "The answer is 'no,' unless you refresh my memory.''

"Is the White House directing this?" Ms. Spaeth said of the organization. "Absolutely not.''

Another participant is the political advertising agency that made the group's television commercial: Stevens Reed Curcio & Potholm, based in Alexandria, Va. The agency worked for Senator McCain in 2000 and for Mr. Bush's father in 1988, when it created the "tank" advertisement mocking Mr. Dukakis. A spokesman for the Swift boat veterans said the organization decided to hire the agency after a member saw one of its partners speaking on television.

About 10 veterans met in Ms. Spaeth's office in Dallas in April to share outrage and plot their campaign against Mr. Kerry, she and others said. Mr. Lonsdale, who did not attend, said the meeting had been planned as "an indoctrination session."

What might have been loose impressions about Mr. Kerry began to harden.

"That was an awakening experience," Ms. Spaeth said. "Not just for me, but for many of them who had not heard each other's stories."

The group decided to hire a private investigator to investigate Mr. Brinkley's account of the war - to find "some neutral way of actually questioning people involved in these incidents,'' Mr. O'Neill said.

But the investigator's questions did not seem neutral to some.

Patrick Runyon, who served on a mission with Mr. Kerry, said he initially thought the caller was from a pro-Kerry group, and happily gave a statement about the night Mr. Kerry won his first Purple Heart. The investigator said he would send it to him by e-mail for his signature. Mr. Runyon said the edited version was stripped of all references to enemy combat, making it look like just another night in the Mekong Delta.

"It made it sound like I didn't believe we got any returned fire," he said. "He made it sound like it was a normal operation. It was the scariest night of my life."

By May, the group had the money that Mr. O'Neill had collected as well as additional veterans rallied by Mr. O'Neill, Mr. Hoffmann and others. The expanded group gathered in Washington to record the veterans' stories for a television commercial.

Each veteran's statement was written down as an affidavit and sent to him to sign and have notarized. But the validity of those affidavits soon came into question.

Mr. Elliott, who recommended Mr. Kerry for the Silver Star, had signed one affidavit saying Mr. Kerry "was not forthright" in the statements that had led to the award. Two weeks ago, The Boston Globe quoted him as saying that he felt he should not have signed the affidavit. He then signed a second affidavit that reaffirmed his first, which the Swift Boat Veterans gave to reporters. Mr. Elliott has refused to speak publicly since then.

The Questions

The book outlining the veterans' charges, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against Kerry," has also come under fire. It is published by Regnery, a conservative company that has published numerous books critical of Democrats, and written by Mr. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi, who was identified on the book jacket as a Harvard Ph.D. and the author of many books and articles. But Mr. Corsi also acknowledged that he has been a contributor of anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic comments to a right-wing Web site. He said he regretted those comments.

The group's arguments have foundered on other contradictions. In the television commercial, Dr. Louis Letson looks into the camera and declares, "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury." Dr. Letson does not dispute the wound - a piece of shrapnel above Mr. Kerry's left elbow - but he and others in the group argue that it was minor and self-inflicted.

Yet Dr. Letson's name does not appear on any of the medical records for Mr. Kerry. Under "person administering treatment" for the injury, the form is signed by a medic, J. C. Carreon, who died several years ago. Dr. Letson said it was common for medics to treat sailors with the kind of injury that Mr. Kerry had and to fill out paperwork when doctors did the treatment.

Asked in an interview if there was any way to confirm he had treated Mr. Kerry, Dr. Letson said, "I guess you'll have to take my word for it."

The group also offers the account of William L. Schachte Jr., a retired rear admiral who says in the book that he had been on the small skimmer on which Mr. Kerry was injured that night in December 1968. He contends that Mr. Kerry wounded himself while firing a grenade.

But the two other men who acknowledged that they had been with Mr. Kerry, Bill Zaladonis and Mr. Runyon, say they cannot recall a third crew member. "Me and Bill aren't the smartest, but we can count to three," Mr. Runyon said in an interview. And even Dr. Letson said he had not recalled Mr. Schachte until he had a conversation with another veteran earlier this year and received a subsequent phone call from Mr. Schachte himself.

Mr. Schachte did not return a telephone call, and a spokesman for the group said he would not comment.

The Silver Star was awarded after Mr. Kerry's boat came under heavy fire from shore during a mission in February 1969. According to Navy records, he turned the boat to charge the Vietcong position. An enemy solider sprang from the shore about 10 feet in front of the boat. Mr. Kerry leaped onto the shore, chased the soldier behind a small hut and killed him, seizing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth describes the man Mr. Kerry killed as a solitary wounded teenager "in a loincloth," who may or may not have been armed. They say the charge to the beach was planned the night before and, citing a report from one crew member on a different boat, maintain that the sailors even schemed about who would win which medals.

The group says Mr. Kerry himself wrote the reports that led to the medal. But Mr. Elliott and Mr. Lonsdale, who handled reports going up the line for recognition, have previously said that a medal would be awarded only if there was corroboration from others and that they had thoroughly corroborated the accounts.

"Witness reports were reviewed; battle reports were reviewed," Mr. Lonsdale said at the 1996 news conference, adding, "It was a very complete and carefully orchestrated procedure." In his statements Mr. Elliott described the action that day as "intense" and "unusual."

According to a citation for Mr. Kerry's Bronze Star, a group of Swift boats was leaving the Bay Hap river when several mines detonated, disabling one boat and knocking a soldier named Jim Rassmann overboard. In a hail of enemy fire, Mr. Kerry turned the boat around to pull Mr. Rassmann from the water.

Mr. Rassmann, who says he is a Republican, reappeared during the Iowa caucuses this year to tell his story and support Mr. Kerry, and is widely credited with helping to revive Mr. Kerry's campaign.

But the group says that there was no enemy fire, and that while Mr. Kerry did rescue Mr. Rassmann, the action was what anyone would have expected of a sailor, and hardly heroic. Asked why Mr. Rassmann recalled that he was dodging enemy bullets, a member of the group, Jack Chenoweth, said, "He's lying."

"If that's what we have to say," Mr. Chenoweth added, "that's how it was."

Several veterans insist that Mr. Kerry wrote his own reports, pointing to the initials K. J. W. on one of the reports and saying they are Mr. Kerry's. "What's the W for, I cannot answer," said Larry Thurlow, who said his boat was 50 to 60 yards from Mr. Kerry's. Mr. Kerry's middle initial is F, and a Navy official said the initials refer to the person who had received the report at headquarters, not the author.

A damage report to Mr. Thurlow's boat shows that it received three bullet holes, suggesting enemy fire, and later intelligence reports indicate that one Vietcong was killed in action and five others wounded, reaffirming the presence of an enemy. Mr. Thurlow said the boat was hit the day before. He also received a Bronze Star for the day, a fact left out of "Unfit for Command."

Asked about the award, Mr. Thurlow said that he did not recall what the citation said but that he believed it had commended him for saving the lives of sailors on a boat hit by a mine. If it did mention enemy fire, he said, that was based on Mr. Kerry's false reports. The actual citation, Mr. Thurlow said, was with an ex-wife with whom he no longer has contact, and he declined to authorize the Navy to release a copy. But a copy obtained by The New York Times indicates "enemy small arms," "automatic weapons fire" and "enemy bullets flying about him." The citation was first reported by The Washington Post on Thursday.

Standing Their Ground

As serious questions about its claims have arisen, the group has remained steadfast and adaptable.

This week, as its leaders spoke with reporters, they have focused primarily on the one allegation in the book that Mr. Kerry's campaign has not been able to put to rest: that he was not in Cambodia at Christmas in 1968, as he declared in a statement to the Senate in 1986. Even Mr. Brinkley, who has emerged as a defender of Mr. Kerry, said in an interview that it was unlikely that Mr. Kerry's Swift boat ventured into Cambodia at Christmas, though he said he believed that Mr. Kerry was probably there shortly afterward.

The group said it would introduce a new advertisement against Mr. Kerry on Friday. What drives the veterans, they acknowledge, is less what Mr. Kerry did during his time in Vietnam than what he said after. Their affidavits and their television commercial focus mostly on those antiwar statements. Most members of the group object to his using the word "atrocities" to describe what happened in Vietnam when he returned and became an antiwar activist. And they are offended, they say, by the gall of his running for president as a hero of that war.

"I went to university and was called a baby killer and a murderer because of guys like Kerry and what he was saying," said Van Odell, who appears in the first advertisement, accusing Mr. Kerry of lying to get his Bronze Star. "Not once did I participate in the atrocities he said were happening."

As Mr. Lonsdale explained it: "We won the battle. Kerry went home and lost the war for us.

"He called us rapers and killers and that's not true," he continued. "If he expects our loyalty, we should expect loyalty from him."

Quoted: Quoted: Bush has not only stated he will not mention Kerry's "service" record, but that he doesn't like the swiftboat ads that do. I'd like to see their proof that W is somehow involved with these guys. As usual, a bunch of cry baby socialist fucktards. And if you believe that I have WMD's in Iraq for you. Oh right..they still haven't found those yet.

Its because you damn leftists had GWB give Saddam 5 last chances to give up the weapons before we invaded..... several weeks to get his shit out of country!

This is why I have high blood pressure.


I'm going for a smoke.

- BUCC_Guy

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Bush has not only stated he will not mention Kerry's "service" record, but that he doesn't like the swiftboat ads that do. I'd like to see their proof that W is somehow involved with these guys. As usual, a bunch of cry baby socialist fucktards. I am not saying this constitutes proof of any kind, but it does address your concern above regarding "their proof": http://nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html?hp (Yes, it is a NY Times article, but worth reading if only to understand "their proof") You have to be a subscriber to view that nytimes article............only a Liberal-Lefty would have such a subscription... so I am forced to restate my original conclusion that kinaed = Keeping one's emotions in check is the hallmark of an objective person. If you cannot bring yourself to "subscribe" I will do you a favor: Friendly Fire: The Birth of an Anti-Kerry Ad By KATE ZERNIKE and JIM RUTENBERG <blah blah blah>

That is "Proof"????

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Bush has not only stated he will not mention Kerry's "service" record, but that he doesn't like the swiftboat ads that do. I'd like to see their proof that W is somehow involved with these guys. As usual, a bunch of cry baby socialist fucktards. I am not saying this constitutes proof of any kind, but it does address your concern above regarding "their proof": http://nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html?hp (Yes, it is a NY Times article, but worth reading if only to understand "their proof") You have to be a subscriber to view that nytimes article............only a Liberal-Lefty would have such a subscription... so I am forced to restate my original conclusion that kinaed = Keeping one's emotions in check is the hallmark of an objective person. If you cannot bring yourself to "subscribe" I will do you a favor: Friendly Fire: The Birth of an Anti-Kerry Ad By KATE ZERNIKE and JIM RUTENBERG <blah blah blah> That is "Proof"????

My disclaimer above stands: "I am not saying this constitutes proof of any kind, but it does address your concern above regarding 'their proof'".

No one is forcing you to believe anything, and I am quite confident that all the right-wing media outlets will have a rebuttle in short order. However, if someone posts a message specifically stating the desire to see "their proof", what better source for "their proof" than the NY Times, a paper often equated (and not undeservedly) to the DNC.

Hence, "their proof."

kinaed,

Kerry may have said that. But does he really mean it? Think about it. Is a man genuine when he says and does many of the same things the supporters he supposedly asked to tone it down is doing? Remember Micahel Moore being critical of Bush "taking too long" to get out of his seat on 9/11? Soon after, Kerry makes the same statement in a speech! That's pretty pathetic, is it not?

On the other hand, we have Bush. He has stepped forward and said that all such attacks, regardless of political beliefs are equally sleezy. He has asked Kerry to join him and asking that all sides cool it with the negative ads. We're talking a real effort to put an end to it on all sides. The two could stand side by side and simultaenously denounce these practices.

So if Kerry is so sincere, as you seem to suggest, why doesn't he do this? It's a fairly simple process. Then they could focus on actual issues. I'll tell you why. First of all, all Kerry has been able to do is stress the negative side of things. He has no plans. He has no ideas. He has nothing to offer than Bush can't match or surpass. So he uses his only option, negative attacks. He's been doing it since before he won the democratic nomination. He doesn't want the negative ads from Michael Moore, MoveOn.org and other sleezy groups to stop. Sure, he makes a weak statement to cover his ass, yet privately (and publically in his own statements), he not only agrees with it, but actually has formed his campaign around it! John Kerry is not a genuine man. He says one thing, then does another. The simple fact is, without these sleezy, negative attacks, he would have nothing to discuss. You know, important stuff like his record. You gotta remember, he's running a nationwide election effort here. He isn't in his Massachusetts safe haven anymore where liberals can thrive. No, he's in a battle in Mid-America where most folkks don't tend to share his views. Therefore the last thing he wants to discuss is his liberal voting record, his history of voting against funding our military and intelligence services, his trips to Europe after his return from Vietnam (while still a reserve officer in the US Navy I might add) to meet with and consort with the enemy we are fighting. He doesn't want to discuss just how little he has actually accomplished during his lengthy political career. No! He doesn't have a leg to stand if he does this. So he says just enough in public to attempt to cover his ass. But behind close doors, he has that "sic em boys" attitude.

So until he stands shoulder to shoulder with Bush as they each ask their supporters to pull such ads, I will view Kerry for what he truly is....a piece of liberal monkey shit who happens to be the biggest hypocrite I've seen in my lifetime. On the other hand, Bush has offered a means out of the pit he's dug himself. But Kerry doesn't really want to silence all of the negative ads. Just the ones directed at him. But the way I see it, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Now that he and his cohorts have made their bed, they'll just have to wallow in it.

-CH

I have a NY Times userid and password to view articles.
This says nothing about my philosophy or political persuasion.
You only hurt yourself if you limit your sources of information.

Quoted: Quoted: Bush has not only stated he will not mention Kerry's "service" record, but that he doesn't like the swiftboat ads that do. I'd like to see their proof that W is somehow involved with these guys. As usual, a bunch of cry baby socialist fucktards. And if you believe that I have WMD's in Iraq for you. Oh right..they still haven't found those yet.

Of course we haven't - people who insisted on UN involvement delayed the invasion by plenty long enough for Saddam to move all of it out of country. BTW - we did find WMDs' in Iraq - they couldn't dig up and move EVERYTHING. Back to DU for you.

I for one am shocked that some of the people brought into a media blitz campaign against a Liberal Senator would be rich and associated with the Republicans.

I will also add. That I was also shocked to see the driving force (Micheal Moore) behind negative media aimed at President Bush sitting in the Presidential Box ant the Democratic National Convention.

Quoted: The above article is bit disengenuous:

Quoted: BTW, please keep the emotion and personal attacks out of the discussion.

I responded  aggressively to your derogatory classification of my original sources as disengenuous. If you cant handle the heat go back to your myopic friends at  DU.

kinaed=DU

Quoted: kinaed, Kerry may have said that. But does he really mean it? Think about it. Is a man genuine when he says and does many of the same things the supporters he supposedly asked to tone it down is doing? Remember Micahel Moore being critical of Bush "taking too long" to get out of his seat on 9/11? Soon after, Kerry makes the same statement in a speech! That's pretty pathetic, is it not? On the other hand, we have Bush. He has stepped forward and said that all such attacks, regardless of political beliefs are equally sleezy. He has asked Kerry to join him and asking that all sides cool it with the negative ads. We're talking a real effort to put an end to it on all sides. The two could stand side by side and simultaenously denounce these practices. So if Kerry is so sincere, as you seem to suggest, why doesn't he do this? It's a fairly simple process. Then they could focus on actual issues. I'll tell you why. First of all, all Kerry has been able to do is stress the negative side of things. He has no plans. He has no ideas. He has nothing to offer than Bush can't match or surpass. So he uses his only option, negative attacks. He's been doing it since before he won the democratic nomination. He doesn't want the negative ads from Michael Moore, MoveOn.org and other sleezy groups to stop. Sure, he makes a weak statement to cover his ass, yet privately (and publically in his own statements), he not only agrees with it, but actually has formed his campaign around it! John Kerry is not a genuine man. He says one thing, then does another. The simple fact is, without these sleezy, negative attacks, he would have nothing to discuss. You know, important stuff like his record. You gotta remember, he's running a nationwide election effort here. He isn't in his Massachusetts safe haven anymore where liberals can thrive. No, he's in a battle in Mid-America where most folkks don't tend to share his views. Therefore the last thing he wants to discuss is his liberal voting record, his history of voting against funding our military and intelligence services, his trips to Europe after his return from Vietnam (while still a reserve officer in the US Navy I might add) to meet with and consort with the enemy we are fighting. He doesn't want to discuss just how little he has actually accomplished during his lengthy political career. No! He doesn't have a leg to stand if he does this. So he says just enough in public to attempt to cover his ass. But behind close doors, he has that "sic em boys" attitude. So until he stands shoulder to shoulder with Bush as they each ask their supporters to pull such ads, I will view Kerry for what he truly is....a piece of liberal monkey shit who happens to be the biggest hypocrite I've seen in my lifetime. On the other hand, Bush has offered a means out of the pit he's dug himself. But Kerry doesn't really want to silence all of the negative ads. Just the ones directed at him. But the way I see it, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Now that he and his cohorts have made their bed, they'll just have to wallow in it. -CH

In the final analysis, it does not matter if Kerry meant what he said; what matters is that the official position of the campaign is to condemn the ad - a position the original message in this thread implied never happened.

The cold, hard fact is that Kerry DID condemn the ad. Whether he meant it is not the issue I am debating (which I seriously doubt, in any case).

A clear, objective understanding of the issue being debated here (whether or not Kerry condemned the ad) is in order, not whether he is sincere about it.

Quoted: Interesting way to twist the story... I'd expect no less from the home of Jason Blair. At the convention they ended the nomination with the no man left behind story in which the 3 boat hit a mine and as the dems claimed all the boats fled but Kerry returned and saved the drowning Rassman on his own...  Pity for him that in truth the other boats stayed, Kerry fled and just happened to return in time to grab Rassman before another boat did.  All the accounts indicate Kerry fled and the DNC's own statements over the past couple of days confirm it was Kerry that fled and the others who stayed.  Sorry guys, the NYT's has had a heart on for Kerry's mouth since day one.  In order to believe their line of shit you would have to believe 254 people decided to put their reputations and life's work on the line to slander a man.

This is the conclusion that I have come to as well.

Quoted: Quoted: The above article is bit disengenuous: Quoted: BTW, please keep the emotion and personal attacks out of the discussion. I responded  aggressively to your derogatory classification of my original sources as disengenuous. If you cant handle the heat go back to your myopic friends at  DU. kinaed=DU

You are so emotional, you see emotion where non exists. The article you posted was disengenuous. If you cannot see that, then you are not a logical, objective person.

<snip>
Debra Deshong of the Kerry campaign told Fox News there's a difference between MoveOn.org and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: "MoveOn.org is an independent organization that existed well before the Kerry campaign," she said, whereas Swift Boat Veterans for Truth "is not an independent group."

Deshong invoked Friday's New York Times article as proof: "And in today's New York Times, it details exactly all the ties this group (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) has to the Bush White House."

Deshong condemned Bush for not telling Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to stop running their ad. (Swift Boats say it wouldn't matter what Bush said -- see related story)

"Again, we (the Kerry campaign) have nothing to do with these independent ads, like MoveOn.org. That is an independent organization that existed well before the Kerry campaign. They have every right to be running what they are under the campaign finance laws." According to Deshong, "This is about the Swift Boat Vets that are running dishonorable ads that Bush refuses to condemn."

<snip>

kinaed, your point is moot.......go away.....

Quoted: Hence, "their proof."

I'll buy that they consider an article like that and it's contents "proof."

This McCain Feingold crap may prevent a car dealer (Russ Darrow "The Right Russ") from running his normal ads for his dealerships.  He's running against Russ Feingold and Common Cause is claiming Darrow would have an unfair advantage by getting his name in front of the public via ads for cars.  

Someone, somewhere will have to find a candidate with the name FOX.  That will bring things to a head.

Quoted: Quoted: Bush has not only stated he will not mention Kerry's "service" record, but that he doesn't like the swiftboat ads that do. I'd like to see their proof that W is somehow involved with these guys. As usual, a bunch of cry baby socialist fucktards. And if you believe that I have WMD's in Iraq for you. Oh right..they still haven't found those yet.

You are correct. We spent so much time wooing the UN they were all moved to Syria and are now filtering throughout the globe.

Quoted: <snip> Debra Deshong of the Kerry campaign told Fox News there's a difference between MoveOn.org and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: "MoveOn.org is an independent organization that existed well before the Kerry campaign," she said, whereas Swift Boat Veterans for Truth "is not an independent group." Deshong invoked Friday's New York Times article as proof: "And in today's New York Times, it details exactly all the ties this group (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) has to the Bush White House." Deshong condemned Bush for not telling Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to stop running their ad. (Swift Boats say it wouldn't matter what Bush said -- see related story) "Again, we (the Kerry campaign) have nothing to do with these independent ads, like MoveOn.org. That is an independent organization that existed well before the Kerry campaign. They have every right to be running what they are under the campaign finance laws." According to Deshong, "This is about the Swift Boat Vets that are running dishonorable ads that Bush refuses to condemn." <snip> kinaed, your point is moot.......go away.....

Illogical.

1. The point was not mine to make.
2. The articles that I referenced clearly indicate Kerry's official, public stance.

Quoted: This McCain Feingold crap may prevent a car dealer (Russ Darrow "The Right Russ") from running his normal ads for his dealerships.  He's running against Russ Feingold and Common Cause is claiming Darrow would have an unfair advantage by getting his name in front of the public via ads for cars.   Someone, somewhere will have to find a candidate with the name FOX.  That will bring things to a head.

That will make one hell of a free speech lawsuit...

And Russ certainly has the money (he is THE largest car dealer in SE Wisconsin)...

If it wern't for the fact that it would tank his campaign, I sincerely hope he sues...

Kind of ironic, that Russ Darrow is RUNNING AGAINST FEINGOLD, THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR OF THE BILL IN QUESTION...