August 2004 - The Response to the Swift Boat Vets

[sandnsea]

To those of you who say Kerry didn't respond, you're just dead wrong. If the media had TOLD YOU he responded, and played the clip like they are Murtha's, then you'd know. The problem is, you LISTEN TO THE PRESSTITUTES. You LET the media tell you what to think. STOP IT, because they're doing it again to create a division on Iraq that doesn't really exist.

Here's what the Kerry campaign and John Kerry REALLY DID in August of 2004.

Between August 4 and August 19, Cutter said the campaign relied on the news media, surrogates and 700 letters to the editor to discredit the charges, including Carville taking on O’Neill on Crossfire on August 12.

On August 19 at the IAFF convention, Kerry stated "They're a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the president won't denounce what they're up to tells you everything you need to know: he wants them to do his dirty work.” After noting the Navy records that awarded him his medals, he added "Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam.”

The campaign releases Rassmann ad, "All these Viet Cong were shooting at me. I expected I'd be shot. When he pulled me out of the river, he risked his life to save mine."

On August 21, the campaign released the internet ad “Old Tricks” along with this statement: “A front group for the Bush campaign called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" is continuing to spread their lies about John Kerry's military record. Their statements have been contradicted by official Navy records, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune and every man who served under John Kerry -- yet George Bush refuses to condemn their tactics. Through his silence, George Bush is approving their action. And Bush campaign officials in Florida are even promoting events for this front group.

Enough is enough. No matter what these Bush campaign shills now say, John Kerry's commanders remarked in 1969 that, "In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, LTJG Kerry was unsurpassed." In fact, all of John Kerry's performance reports (available on our website) display an absolutely heroic record of service.”

On August 25, Max Cleland attempted to deliver a letter to George Bush asking “where is his shame to attack a fellow veteran who has distinguished himself in combat?"

The campaign responded. DID YOU???

[blm]

1. Kerry will be attacking WH on senate floor for swiftboating of Murtha

This is what other vets needed to do back in 2004.

But media muted the voices that did speak up while raising the volume for the swiftliars.

and many in the leftleaning and objective media let the RW message machine control that message on a daily basis. They didn't have the power themselves to fight back effectively.

[LSK]

7. he is the next speaker - CSPAN2

[BillZBubb]

2. Kerry's response was ineffective for a number of reasons.

If you think that level of response was sufficient, you won't lead many winning campaigns against the Repugs.

I knew Kerry would lose when he let the Repugs get away with mocking him with band-aids at their convention. That stunt should have brought an unrelenting attack against the Repugs for their hypocrisy and dishonesty--starting with a direct response by Kerry DURING THEIR CONVENTION.

[seabeyond]

12. dont you think the american people should have been outraged

and media should have been outraged.

it is all on kerry to be outraged? i am sorry but as a society of have expectations of us as a whole. if my repug father and brother arent disgusted with the way vets were attacked by their own party, then shame on them

i hold the americna people as, if not more responsible to lack of outrage over the purple bandaid

[kentuck]

3. They had an easy target to attack...

John 'whats-his-face' was all over the tube. There were photos of him with Richard Nixon going all the way back to the 1970's and he had been after Kerry since that time. They should have attacked this guy's credibility. If they had chopped off the head, the snake would have died.

[sandnsea]

5. Nope

DeepModemMom has it exactly right.

It's the McCarthy effect.

"In fact, all decent Americans should join him. This destruction of heroes by cowards, financed by filthy rich cowards, must stop.

Have this people NO decency?? None?"

There shouldn't have been any need to do anything except expose the smear and fear Rovian tactics. This is what they DO. If Kerry had had the kind of support Hackett & Murtha are getting, it would have been a snap. Instead, Democrats have some obsessive need to second-guess every blessed thing the man does and says.

[Walt Starr]

4. That was no response. It was a whine

Sorry, but to have effectively countered the Swift liars, he needed to be on top of it via surrogates as early as June, discrediting every last one of them before they ramped up the crap.

The book was going to be published and they were all over the itnernet bragging it up about what they were about to do.

Kerry waited until it was too late to do anything about it. His response was defensive at a time when only being on the offense would have worked.

[sandnsea]

6. This is just the August attack

The April and June attacks were knocked out, I didn't go back and get those responses. It wasn't until the August attack that they got any traction. And if you click and read, you'll find a statement from O'Neill where he says he didn't get any real play until Kerry responded himself. Until that point, Kerry was up in the polls and this attack was going nowhere.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. "Between August 4 and August 19"

They effectively did nothing. They hoped it would just pass. They got the same bad advice given to dukakis, given to gore, given out by political hacks every time. 'Don't respond directly it ain't dignified'. And, even worse, the Kerry team decided to respect the traditional haitus while the RNC was in gear, and Rove took advantage of that by staging the switftboat smear at the same time. Two weeks later was two weeks too late.

[kentuck]

10. Yep...

I agree. And it seemed like no one took on O'Neil on his charges. He was the person that should have been shot down.

[sandnsea]

14. They responded twice before

Surrogates and press releases had been more than enough before. They had no reason to believe cable news would pick it up when they hadn't previously. Besides, if you click the link, you'll find O'Neill believes that the only reason it took off was because Kerry responded himself. Before that, it wasn't really going anywhere.

[Norquist Nemesis]

9. Do we really need to rehash all of this again?

Yes he did. No he didn't. Yes he did.

What's the point?

[kentuck]

11. Only if you don't have the correct answer.....

We don't wish to repeat the same mistake again.

[sandnsea]

13. I wouldn't

if it didn't come up every single time John Kerry opens his mouth.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. Actually on this board what comes up everytime he opens his mouth

is his continuing inability to articulate a coherent position on the Iraqi Blunder. He still can't bring himself to admit that the whole thing was wrong. he still is trying to have it both ways.

[sandnsea]

16. been under a rock?

This is what happened last year. People who didn't pay attention to what he said went around spouting media bullshit instead. Just like you're doing now.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. OK here we go again.

I read John's latest plan. It continues to be a 'program for success in Iraq' within the 'can't afford to fail' meme that the DLC trumpets. It continues to insist that the problem is a management problem, not a mission problem. It continues to require a fantasy of Iraqi stability as a precondition for our termination of our illegal and immoral aggression against Iraq. John continues to not get it.

And despite all of my misgivings, which were present all last year, I kept my mouth shut and worked my ass off for Kerry and would have been thrilled had he won. But he didn't. He didn't because he ran a lousy campaign, because the amoral creeps on the other side engaged in election fraud, and because he failed to articulate a clear distinction between the corrupt corporate controlled rightwing Republican Party and the corrupt corporate controlled somewhat less rightwing Democratic Party, other than we aren't quite so willing to bash gays and are very enthusiastic about abortions.

So he didn't win and he is no longer our candidate and it is not even primary season and therefore I will continue to criticize John for his many flaws.

[sandnsea]

18. You said

"He still can't bring himself to admit that the whole thing was wrong."

You're wrong. He has said it so many times I cannot even count. And for whatever reason that I will never comprehend, you continue to choose to distort his consistent plan to get out of Iraq. The opposite of the Bush building bases and staying forever plan. Kerry has always called for an international presence, he's always called for pulling back the US troops, he's always called for getting the corporations out. I'm sorry that whatever media you pay attention to didn't tell you.

Or that you chose to distort it just like you're distorting what he said last month.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. I am distorting nothing.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2005_10_26.html

On and on he goes with a plan for 'success'.

" I want to talk about the steps we must take if we hope to bring our troops home within a reasonable timeframe from an Iraq that’s not permanently torn by irrepressible conflict."

"To those who suggest we should withdraw all troops immediately – I say No. A precipitous withdrawal would invite civil and regional chaos and endanger our own security."

And the continued linkage to a mythical successful outcome:

"The Administration must immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn. No more shell games, no more false reports of progress, but specific and measurable goals.

...

We Need A Political Solution:

Our strategy must achieve a political solution that deprives the Sunni-dominated insurgency of support by giving the Sunnis a stake in the future of their country."

I've got a better plan: we get out and stop killing Iraqis. It was wrong to invade and it is not right to stay.

[sandnsea]

21. Yes you are

A plan to get out and not "endanger our own security", with a sector by sector turnover, has nothing to do with "winning" or any other ridiculous notion. It is simply the best way to get out as quickly as possible. Bring in Iraqi troops, hand over a region, and send our troops home. And then do it again and again. As we leave areas, the insurgency should stop because that's what's causing all the violence, right? We leave behind a country that is able to function on some level, which is a success. Not in "winning the war", but in defining how we leave. That's a success, leaving and hopefully not leaving chaos behind. That's all. Don't distort it into warmongering imperialism, it never has been.

[LondonReign2]

22. I'd give up, Warren, if I were you

sandnsea will never ever admit that the glorious John Kerry was ever anything but the BESTEST CANDIDATE EVER. Nothing you say will make a difference, nor will it ever be allowed to be the last statement.

Save yourself the aggravation.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. got it - thanks.

[politicasista]

24. Why don't we all just give it a rest?

I say this as a supporter of Dems who are fighting this criminal administration. I don't hear the repukes talking about the Smear Boat Liars. We need to stop buying into their trap and helping them keep us divided period.

[MH1]

20. THANK YOU.

Other Democrats needed to trounce the swift liars when they attacked Kerry, like Kerry is trouncing the liars about Murtha.

It's one thing to defend yourself (and Kerry did) but the real power comes from the numbers of others defending you.

I defended Kerry when I could in my little part of the world. Others, like Max Cleland, were standing up for Kerry. But the din of reproach should have been deafening, and it wasn't - either because it didn't get past the media filter, or because other Dems didn't back up Kerry the way he is backing up Murtha.

And then they go and say "Kerry didn't fight back." Sheesh.

[Kansas Wyatt]

25. The Weekend prior to the election, Ted Koppel on Nightline proved...

O'Neill was lying his ass off about John Kerry, and reduced O'Neill into a crybaby pile of pure shit. To top it off, O'Neill was still trying to peddle his worthless books as pure truth, right after he was exposed as a lying piece of shit.

Where was the MSM following this exposure? :shrug: Just like their Glory Boy, AWOL. :yoiks:

[0rganism]

26. ...should have been in *exactly the same medium* as the SBVs...

...by which I mean the appropriate way to respond to an infomercial is with an infomercial, NOT a speech at a convention, or a letter to the editor, or Carville ranting on a talking head show. All that helps, yes, and it was absolutely necessary because the rethuglicans were doing those things in support of the SBV allegations. But when Sinclair ran its hit piece in October, the Kerry campaign had a very narrow window of opportunity to respond in kind. The natural way to proceed would have been to excerpt relevant portions of "Going Upriver" and "Winter Soldier" in an equivalent-length response to "A POW Story" (Sinclair's watered-down version of "Stolen Honor"). Failing that, the Kerry campaign (if not Kerry himself) should have insisted on making a direct televised response immediately after the program aired, preferably on the same Sinclair affilliates that broadcast the hit piece.

How can you blame people for not knowing what Kerry and his close associates did and did not say in response? It was not the voters' (or even the DUers') responsibility to go on-line and google their way to the Kerry campaign message. Rather, it is the responsibility of Kerry's campaign staff to make that message unavoidable, as much as possible. People generally don't jump on the internet expecting -- let alone planning -- to watch advertisements. Saying that "an internet ad was available at the campaign website" is only making weak excuse for not running that ad on TV, in prime time, where it IS expected. The audience for such ads and infomercials is naturally the apathetic and passive, not the activists on either side who've already made up their minds as to what they will and won't believe.