August 20, 2004: They Were All William Calley

Not surprisingly, the new ad from the Swift Boat Veterans gets to the heart of the controversy and takes us back to the days of Vietnam in ways that I never dreamed would happen in 2004. These veterans are furious with Kerry for implying, essentially, that they were all William Calleys. I am really conflicted about the war itself, but I certainly don't blame the veterans for feeling this way. Some of them evidently had declined to say the very things Kerry did, although they were tortured by the North Vietnamese to do so. Kerry's words in the ad are extremely harsh. Now I wonder... even more than I previously did... why the Senator chose to base his campaign on his Vietnam service. Why would he want to do that, other than the obvious innoculation against Bush's anti-terror record? (There are other ways to handle that.) It seems particularly odd for a man who once compared American servicemen to Genghis Khan to call attention to this. The only explanation I can offer is he is wrestling with private demons and has secret wishes only his analyst could know. Unfortunately, there is no way to tell if this analysis is "terminable or interminable," as Freud would say. And we are left picking up the bill.

UPDATE: Amateur Kerry analysts (who, moi?) might want to have a look at this. Much of it makes sense.

MORE: I notice some debate on here whether the Swift Vets are getting traction with voters. I certainly don't know... and I don't think the story is written yet, El 'Awrence... but this report would from the AP would indicate they are beginning to. But speaking of Lawrence of Arabia, I would just like to remind everybody of the corny truth from that movie: "Nothing is written."

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

That ad is devastating. The sound of Kerry's patrician voice attributing the brutality of Ghengis Kahn's hordes to his former comrades, juxtaposed with former POWs saying that Kerry gave our enemies what they would not under torture, is amazingly powerful.

I agree with Roger. How on earth did this guy think he could base his entire candidacy on his Vietnam service?

And, laughably, he says in his interview in GQ, that he's tired of talking about Vietnam, would be happy if it never came up again.

To quote Bill the Cat, "ACK!"

Posted by: Mike at August 20, 2004 10:42 AM

Polling dynamics have determined every move Kerry has made. The general public rates WoT/terrorism/intelligence issues as being much more important than any others. Terrorism beats the economy and other domestic issues by over 50% wrt importance. Kerry had nothing in the bag whatsoever to show folks concerning military or intelligence issues. What was he supposed to hold up and show? His opposition to every weapons system authorized in the US in the past twenty years? His proposal to cut the intelligence budget after the WTC I bombing?

His current reaction to the first ad is based on polling also. The polls we'll never see are telling a story that the Kerry campaign doesn't know how to counter. Chris Matthews is as connected a Dem pol as you'd ever want to meet. He's tied to the MA mob through his many years of flacking for Tip. His incredible reaction to Michelle Malkin is the clearest indication I've seen to just how bad the unpublicized private polls must be.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 20, 2004 10:44 AM

This may be old news to you but I think the public should know where the movies of Kerry trapsing around the jungle with a weapon (somewqhat like Bush criticized for traipsing around the carrier)come from. Some time ago a person named Thomas Vallely, described as a friend and supporter of Kerry, is reported (Boston Globe I think)to say they were staged rather than real pictures of combat situations etc. Certainly that adds to the view he had "a plan" to use the experiences for politics as did his successful reqwuest to be released early from the Navy to run for Congress.

Posted by: John Garland at August 20, 2004 10:46 AM

Matthews seems to be on the verge of hysteria. His badgering of guests is worse than anything O'Reilly has ever done, and as I recall, at least O'Reilly ends by telling his guests, "I'll let you have the last word."

Matthews won't let them have the first, middle or last.

The MSM is really on a bender. The Boston Globe's Tom Oliphant was on The News Hour last night with John O'Neill. The condecension in his voice as he told O'Neill that the book's allegations did not come "within a country mile" of the journalistic standards of his paper, left me howling at my TV.

Posted by: Mike at August 20, 2004 10:50 AM

Mike,

To be within a "country mile" of the Globe's standards it would have to be already-discredited Russian porn being passed off as evidence of American abuse.

Posted by: bdog57 at August 20, 2004 10:56 AM

The simple answer for why Kerry based his entire campaign on his 4 months in Vietnam more than 35 years ago is that he had no possible chance to be nominated otherwise.

My Democratic friends have started to question whether the nomination of Kerry was a mistake, but the unfortunate reality is that every other alternative for them was also significantly flawed.

To wit: Dean - may as well nominate Michael Moore; Edwards - 5 years in the Senate w/o a single notable accomplishment, trial lawyer, protectionist on par with Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan; Wes Clark - moonbat, why did Clinton fire him again? Hilary (I know she never actually ran)- she's Hilary, too polarizing (to be kind)

The Dems created this problem for themselves more than 2 years ago when no one with any general election credibility (save Lieberman) stepped up to run.

As for Lieberman, these Dems would have never nominated someone as moderate as him. Unfortunately for Joe, he may have to come to the same realization about his party that Zell Miller did. Joe's problem though is that he's from CT and not GA.

Apologies for the long post.

Posted by: CalDevil at August 20, 2004 11:01 AM

Apologies for the long post.
<MelBlanc>
Ohh. He don't know us vewwey well, do he?
</MelBlanc>

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at August 20, 2004 11:09 AM

There are other ways to handle that.

The best of which would be to get out in front of Mr. Bush on the subject of the War on Terror. Run on a platform of winning the War on Terror rather than managing it (as appears to be the current policy). How many Deaniac votes would this have lost him really?

In the final analysis what concerns me most about Mr. Kerry is regardless of what his own beliefs about the War on Terror or the war in Iraq may be what will he do when in the White House and surrounded by Democratic activities who are substantially farther left on this than he is?

Posted by: Dave Schuler at August 20, 2004 11:09 AM

CalDevil:

"Edwards - 5 years in the Senate w/o a single notable accomplishment"

Didn't Kerry produce two (TWO!) pieces of legislation in his twenty (TWENTY!) years in the Senate?

The guy has no record of leadership in Congress, and a terrible voting record on the issues.

I guess Vietnam is all he has, and it's proving to be less than he and his supporters had hoped for.

Funny thing is, a mere twelve years ago, the MSM would have spiked this story, and there would have been no alternative means of responding.

Posted by: Mike at August 20, 2004 11:23 AM

For the Kerry supporter in your life. Link

Posted by: bdog57 at August 20, 2004 11:40 AM

Frankly, I'm just staggered at the meltdown. It's like watching a train hurtling itself off the preciple. I was commenting to a coworker how I'd love to be that dark spot on the wall in many places today. If this guy is finding it hard to take the heat now, how will he be taking it when a certain foreign leader is posing his twitching finger tip on that red button?

I almost feel . . . but not quite, sorry for him. After all, he bought it on himself the moment he made that speech. He ought to have broadened out to include his work in the senate as proof of his qualifications for this position. Except that for the most part his congressional records are mediocre. And his campaign staff knows not what they're doing - mixing him up with Bob Kerrey over a prestigious committee. If I ever ran for political office (not gonna do it anytime soon - I have too much on my plate for the next 40 years), remind me not to hire anyone who are currently running his campaign.

Posted by: Lola at August 20, 2004 11:49 AM

Apropos of getting inside Kerry's head, the man does seem to have some serious weirdness problems. The guys at Power Line recently posted a photo of Kerry "... throwing a baseball on the tarmac in Long Beach, California, while the Secret Service stands guard, and Kerry's limo and airplane wait for him to finish the baseball photo-op."

On the tarmac, of all places, wearing a dress shirt and slacks rather than a T-shirt and shorts. "Really, strange as it may seem--almost every single day, the Kerry campaign pauses to give photographers a chance to take pictures of the candidate throwing baseballs and footballs. Never mind that he does this very poorly..."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007513.php

The photo reminded me of Dennis Miller's remark about the Democratic alternatives to Kerry--"I haven't seen this bad a lineup since the '62 Mets."

Posted by: Connecticut Yankee at August 20, 2004 11:54 AM

Check this out:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Vietnam-Vets-for-Kerry.html

What timing. A cynic could think this was paid for by those eeeeevil republicans. But somehow I don't think so.

Whatchathink?

Posted by: vnjagvet at August 20, 2004 11:56 AM

Kerry is obsessed with Vietnam; that much is evident. Think about his daughter Alexandra, making a movie about a girl whose father served in Vietnam. Remember, Alexandra was born in 1974, five years after Kerry's tour of duty ended; by the time she could remember much it was nine years later.

Posted by: Pat Curley at August 20, 2004 12:01 PM

I sometimes wonder if the Kerry "All Vietnam, all the time, and by the way, I served in Vietnam" strategy was born from the Democrats believing their own mythology about Republicans.

I.e., thinking like this: Anybody who would vote for a Nazi chimp is, self-evidently, a simpleton. So how to get simpleton brutes to vote for Kerry? Well, Republicans are all violent warmongers, so let's highlight the fact that our guy fought in a war, and Bush didn't. And we'll paint reserve duty as draft dodging. So violent Republicans will say "Ugh. Bush no pick up club and hit people in Vietnam. Kerry pick up club, and was in Vietnam. Him good. Me vote Kerry."

And since Republicans are stupid, and the media are on our side, there's no need to worry about any of the self-evident contradictions in this strategy, because they're only self-evident if you're not a moron, and such people don't exist on the other side, because they vote for evil chimps. Q.E.D.

No, I don't really quite believe this, but there's not a lot to rationally explain voluntarily making Vietnam *so* central to Kerry's campaign, so I'm looking for whatever I can find.

It really is hard to figure. Yeah, Kerry's kind of a hard sell, but 20 years in the Senate, even undistinguished years, can be sold with bland generalities, and the general assumption that he must have been doing *something* of note to get reelected many times: "But sir, Delta Tau Chi has a long tradition of existence both to its members and the community at large."

I mean, it isn't a *great* strategy, but it'd be serviceable - just talk up Kerry's latest positions on "the issues" and breeze by attempts to discuss his past positions on those same issues.

Posted by: David C at August 20, 2004 12:03 PM

The new ad is absolutely devastating. I was particularly impressed by the vets counterpositioned with Kerry's testimony. One seriously wounded vet and 2 longterm POWs. The vet who refused to sign under torture a statement that he committed war crimes was the most powerful part. Now my question for all is: Pretend your Mary Beth Cahill. What is your strategy? You tried the ignore it and it will go away strategy. Now everybody is covering the swift vets (even it is being spun by the MSM it still getting heavy play which is not good). I have a picture of Carville and Davis doing their attack dog routine on one these POW vets. Somehow I don't think that will work either

Posted by: PeterArgus at August 20, 2004 12:03 PM

Either Kerry was deliberately set up by his own party with bad advice, or the whole party is THAT divorced from reality. Take your pick.

Posted by: Jay Rice at August 20, 2004 12:03 PM

Dave Schuler -

To define a winning strategy to win the war, he would have to categorically deny the Islamist's right to kill us based on their cultural/religious motivations, identify such actors as evil, and pledge to pursue and eliminate them whereever they are found.

That's the minimum. He'd lose a chunk of the moonbat vote just for that. The whole herd would thunder over the horizon if he even suggested that he believed that representative democracy and capitalism were the long-term solutions to draining the swamp.

There are two solutions to ending Islamist terror...and Bush has chosen the hard one by far if measured by the tools in our possession and historical precedent.

Thus, Kerry gets a pass from media and his base by simply posturing; they know he'll cut and run in the end. The campaign's hope was that getting his homemovies and medals in front of the public during and after the convention would pick off enough Only-Get-News-From-TV moderates to pad the ABB's.

I don't see it happening.

Posted by: TmjUtah at August 20, 2004 12:06 PM

(Hey, let's not knock Kerry for having few pieces of legislation to his name. Maybe it's the crank that I am, but I'd love to find a legislator who resists the need to slap a law on every damn thing under the sun. There are many other reasons to dislike the guy.)

Penwil's made this point on other threads, and I agree wholeheartedly - Kerry's post-Vietnam "activism" is what's going to kill his campaign. Much of what we've been discussing abut the Swift Boat vets is too much "inside baseball" for the casual observer, but Kerry's condemnation of his fellow soldiers is easily understandable to all. It's also totally repulsive to many voting Americans (except for the usual suspects, of course).

This is what will hang him. The delicious thing is, he did it all to himself.

Posted by: Percy Dovetonsils at August 20, 2004 12:08 PM

Re: Either Kerry was deliberately set up by his own party with bad advice, or the whole party is THAT divorced from reality. Take your pick.

First, I don't think anyone life can be this diabolically clever, but if Hillary Clinton DID try ensure her chances for 2008, could she have planned anything better than what has happened. MSM will kill Kerry after he's elected (which he won't be, don't worry), which would set her up for 2008. No matter what happens in November, it's win-win for her. The Clintons can't be this slick, though, right?

Posted by: Godzilla at August 20, 2004 12:11 PM

Kerry has spent all of his political life in a cocoon provided by the Massachusetts Kennedy machine. He got in that lush job BECAUSE of his anti-war credentials. The fact is, that his WAR credentials stink didn't matter back in 1971 - he did really well in the Senate Hearing and at the anti-war demos. And since then, he has flickered along being the JUNIOR Senator from Massachusetts.

In all that time, since 1971, he HAS NOT HAD TO USE HIS BRAIN. (I'll give the guy credit that he probably, maybe, has one.)

More importantly, the Democratic Party has shown itself to be completely incompetent in this last cycle, and it should be thoroughly massacred in November - and only then will intelligent, smart people - unconnected with the Kennedys and the Deans etc - begin to pick over the shards and built a new and reasonable party that speaks to reasonable non-Republican Americans.

As to the Swiftees: the Boomers are having a great time - this election is ABOUT US!! Yay!! Our last hoorah, folks, enjoy it. It will all be over when Iran dumps its bomb on Tel Aviv.

And as to the Blogosphere and Internet: we have here a bunch of intelligent, INFORMED, interested people NOT PART OF THE WASHINGTON-NY-LA COCKTAIL CIRCUIT - showing the Media up, and doing a really competent job. Why, this O'Neill - a small time Texas lawyer, NOT ON WALL STREET, FORGAWDSAKE, has packaged a great series of attacks on the Holy Dem Party, and has managed to fend off the 'sophisticated' attacks of the Great New York Times Itself. The stars are re-aligning themselves..

Posted by: heather at August 20, 2004 12:11 PM

Not too late for Hillary.

Unless sitting back, watching Kerry explode and setting her sights on 2008 was the plan all along.

Posted by: thibaud at August 20, 2004 12:21 PM

Can't have both Mikey's vote and my vote, Johnny. Gotta choose at some point.

Posted by: thibaud at August 20, 2004 12:23 PM

I was predicting Kerry in the mid to low 30s last week.

I may have been too high.

I do not see how any human could vote for him after this.

And yes I have the Doors on and I'm fighting this war one last time. HoooooooYaaaaaaaaa.

Video link:

http://a1281.v125028.c12502.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/1281/12502/v0001/eaglepub.download.akamai.com/12502/sellout.wmv

What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 20, 2004 12:29 PM

Armchair psychological diagnosis is wrong, wrong, wrong but here I go.

5 or more of the criteria must be met
---Feels self-important - exaggerates achievements to the point of lying
---Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success & unequalled brilliance
---Is convinced that he is unique and should only associate with high-status people
---Requires excessive admiration
---Feels entitled
---Uses others to achieve his own ends
---Devoid of empathy
---Is envious or believes others are envious of him
---Arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes

The Senator chose to base his campaign on his Vietnam service because is devoid of empathy; he coudn't fathom how his actions were detrimental to other servicemen. The brouhaha over whether he tossed his or someone else's medals should have been a red flag that his Vietnam years would be contentious. His arrogance and his sense of entitlement probably kept any sensible person on his staff from stepping forward and saying, let's keep Vietnam out of the campaign altogether.

Posted by: ganzo azul at August 20, 2004 12:31 PM

Reading these comments, I fear the prospect of a reverse Pauline Kael.

Yes, there is some agreement that Kerry's running a very poor campaign.

Yes, more to the point of this thread, there are some devastating points being scored by the SBVFT's ads.

Here's the problem: Who are these points being scored on?

Among the denizens of this blog? Hardly. There weren't that many who were likely to vote Kerry.

Among the Left blogosphere? Reading around, one comes away w/ the impression that the SBVFT could get General Giap's deputy to testify that Kerry was worth three NVA divisions, and it wouldn't make one whit of difference.

Among the general populace? Maybe. But as many have noted, the MSM is doing its darndest to ignore the SBVFT, except where they can show that they are liars, delusional, psychopaths, Republicans, or all of the above. ("Show," not as in "evince proof," but "show," as in "portray in such a light.") And, as folks have noted here and elsewhere, many an average citizen has neither seen nor heard much about the controversies that are discussed extensively here and elsewhere in the blogosphere.

So, I am not nearly as sanguine about these ads. I very much suspect that their impact is more among those who were already skeptical of Kerry. While there are some undecideds who have been swayed, one wonders whether they're enough.

And I would suggest not becoming so optimistic, based on these ads, that the prospect of "President John F. Kerry" becomes "inconceivable." Because I do know what that word means.....

Posted by: Sun-Tzu at August 20, 2004 12:40 PM

vnjagvet,

I went to the NYT url you sent and absolutely couldn't believe it.

This is so tone deaf as to be beyond belief. Talk about the inabiliity to put yourselfin your enemy's shoes. They are in Vietnam favoring Kerry the same day the swifties are talking about being tortured by the North.

Un fookin believeable. This is way beyond belief. Way beyond. This put the stake in the heart of communism. Once and for all.

This election will be topical in a thousand years.

Simon

Video link

http://a1281.v125028.c12502.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/1281/12502/v0001/eaglepub.download.akamai.com/12502/sellout.wmv

What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 20, 2004 12:44 PM

Godzilla,

WE think the Kerry campaign focus on his service was bad. Just plain dumb. Old Lefty Dems probably thought it was a cynical joke to have an anti-war candidate run as a war president. Mainstream Democrats have got to see the dicotomy in their party and worry about the seeming ascendancy of the Old Left they hoped they could ignore and hide away like old Walter Cronkite transcripts. And young Democrats will be introduced to their party's participation in a horrid assault on Vietnam Vets less than three months after celebrating The Greatest Generation.

I figure the Dem party would be smart if they cut their losses - the Ted Kennedy branch of their party - by lumping all the Lefties together, funding them, giving them bad advice, watching them sink, then calling the whole thing an apology. Sorta.

This isn't about Hillary. She isn't a viable candidate with her negatives. It's about what the Democrat party has become and how they might think they can retrieve some semblance of credibility. IMHO

Posted by: Jay Rice at August 20, 2004 12:46 PM

PeterArgus,

The magic moment for Mary Beth has passed. This isn't MA and the machine isn't functioning. Had Kerry truly "charged the ambush" within 48 hours (with DNC/MSM help) he might have avoided this. As it is, he's scheduled to address the American Legion with this new ad running. In Cincinnati 6,000 out of 15,000 showed up for his speech. How many will show up in Nashville?

I really never thought that this issue would actually define the campaign. I figured that it would run for 10 days or so and fade from lack of coverage. Now I'm wondering if we will see a "health crisis" and Kerry withdrawal. Right now, I'd rate the possibility at 1 in 10 but if the polls swing as heavily over the next two weeks as I anticipate (more than 10%) then the party will start leaning on Kerry rather heavily. A 10% gap on Sept. 4th would just have too large an impact downticket.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 20, 2004 12:47 PM

Sun-Tzu,

Have you seen the ads? To vote Kerry means favoring the torture of Americans. What is the market for that? 20%? 30%? Not much more.

Video link:

====
Video link:

http://a1281.v125028.c12502.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/1281/12502/v0001/eaglepub.download.akamai.com/12502/sellout.wmv

What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 20, 2004 12:50 PM

Sun Tzu -

The post-convention period for Kerry was supposed to be run by the media. Remember the 'strategic pause' to conserve his funds...? I believe the campaign was just accepting that TV time doesn't do anything for Kerry, even if it isn't actually detrimental to him.

MSM would replay his 'Reporting for Duty' schtick and the 527's would hammer Bush. That was the plan. The Swifties haven't had any effect on my vote. They probably won't on the ABB crowd. That's just fine.

The point remains that the post-convention period was intended for undecided voters - intended for them to find something to vote FOR in favor of John Kerry. John Kerry, Strong Leader.

That's all over now.

Posted by: TmjUtah at August 20, 2004 12:52 PM

Sun Tzu, the ads are working. The WaPo reported yesterday that Kerry went from 46%-46% among veterans to 55%-37%. That's why the attack dogs have been unleashed. But the Swiftees are media savvy; today they unveiled the ad about Kerry claims of atrocities, and the media are going to have a very tough time contesting the statements made there. They also released another chapter in the book that also deals with Kerry's Senate appearance in 1971.

Kerry's bleeding badly; that's why his defenders are starting to froth at the mouth. Matthews was in total meltdown mode last night with Malkin.

Posted by: Pat Curley at August 20, 2004 12:54 PM

Matthews should be horse-whipped for his treatment of Michelle Malkin and the fact that he won't be is yet another sign of our cultural decay.

Posted by: Roberts at August 20, 2004 12:56 PM

M. Simon:

Yes, I saw the ads. On my computer.

How many people still rely on old media, MSM if you will, for their information? How many of those people will see the ad, versus hearing about it via the MSM ("an anti-Kerry group aired another ad today discussing Senator Kerry's actions in Vietnam, over thirty years ago....").

Yes, the numbers are dropping. Yes, it's heartening that the MSM is forced to respond (and I am very bemused at these op-eds and editorials responding to stories that the papers themselves didn't cover).

But do you think Roger, our gracious blog-host, is more or less influential than the NYT's news feed for a swing state like MO? Or LA?

Moreover, how many people will zone this ad out, partly b/c the MSM doesn't cover it, and partly b/c the educational system in this country has relegated Vietnam to a war "long ago, in a land far away"? When more people are being taught about Manzanar than Iwo Jima in their studies on World War II (Instapundit mentioned this, a few months back), I suspect that it's far more likely that folks will dismiss all this (or chalk it up as "candidates pitching mud"), than sit up and take notice.

Mind you, M. Simon, I'm not advocating this, I'm not saying the SBVFT are wrong, I'm not saying Kerry will win. I'm only saying that pinning hopes on this ad (or even a full series of ads) is liable to produce disappointment.

Posted by: Sun-Tzu at August 20, 2004 12:57 PM

Rick B.

I'm predicting Sept. 3 - 4 for structural reasons (crack propagation in the nation state Gemany Aug 1918) but I agree with your estimate.

Just before a rout the forces are milling and undecided on what to do. The alpha male has lost control and its

sauve qui peut

not quite yet. But soon. Soon.

I'm sure the swifties have one or two more attacks if necessary. Probably not.

--==--

What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 20, 2004 12:59 PM

Pat Curley and Roberts:

I wonder if you will be proven right.

Those attack dogs can be pretty scary, especially when they wield a fair amount of firepower through broadcast TV and the newspapers/newsmagazines.

And it will only get worse.

My only thought is Cromwell's admonition: Trust in God, but keep your powder dry.

Posted by: Sun-Tzu at August 20, 2004 1:00 PM

Was that really Kerry's voice on the ad? If so, did you notice how he pronounced "Jin-jis Khan"?

Posted by: Fresh Air at August 20, 2004 1:06 PM

Sun-Tzu--

The trouble is those guys are legitimate war heroes. Unless the MSM can somehow prove all of them are lying, the counterattacks will fail.

Rick B.--

Kerry will not pull out. No way! This is the chance he's been waiting for his whole life. He doesn't even know how bad it is. Presidential candidates are so surrounded with yes-men and yes-women that the awful news probably won't ever make it through to his coccoon. People like Shrum are blowing in his ear telling him how great things are going, nodding along as he gripes about the "Republican smear machine," and sharing a double-vanilla-skim-latte (no foam) as they go over his redecorating plans for the Oval Office, while his advance people carry on about not having enough red balloons for the rally that is now curiously short of a full audience.

You gotta hand it to Shrum, not many people in politics have a perfect 0-8 record.

Posted by: Fresh Air at August 20, 2004 1:14 PM

TmjUtah:

I think you're probably right. However, Bush's plan (if that is, in fact, still the plan—I'm beginning to wonder) addresses only one of the critical success factors that made 9/11 possible. There are others and it would speak pretty poorly of the Democratic Party if they couldn't find one approach that would fit within the party orthodoxy.

heather:

As to the Swiftees: the Boomers are having a great time - this election is ABOUT US!! Yay!! Our last hoorah, folks, enjoy it.

You optimist you. Mr. Kerry is not a Baby Boomer. He misses by three years. Count on at least four or five more election cycles in which the Boomers are hoorahing. I'm not looking forward to it much.

Posted by: Dave Schuler at August 20, 2004 1:18 PM

Fresh Air:

Let me reiterate that I am not trying to grind an axe here. I am not suggesting that the SBVFT are liars, nor am I suggesting that the people in the ads are not heroes.

What I am wondering is, "If a hero speaks, but the MSM resolutely ignores him, will he be heard outside parts of the blogosphere?"

Posted by: Sun-Tzu at August 20, 2004 1:18 PM

FA,

That's his voice. I believe that the sequence remarks is just interrupted - not ellipsed.

Pat C.,

There is no rebuttal to this ad. It is John Kerry speaking and it "personal opinion" by vets personally affected by his words and conduct. There are no circumstances or facts to dispute. I'm not saying that there will be no response to the ad but it is logically impossible to rebut your own words and someone's reaction to them. All that's needed now is a picture of Jane Fonda sitting on his lap while Ho Chi Minh lights his cigar.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 20, 2004 1:19 PM

"Why would the Senator choose to base his campaign on his Vietnam service?"

I think it has to do with Rice's comment above using the phrase, "divorced from reality." He applied this phrase to the Democratic Party, but I think it applies more to the candidate. The only explanation that can be is that he has been telling these lies for so long, and so loudly, he has come to believe them. When I look at him now in counter-attack mode, he really looks and sounds sincere. He has succeeded in deceiving himself.

Posted by: exguru at August 20, 2004 1:19 PM

Mary Beth Cahill vs. Karl Rove?

Hmmm...couldn't have called that one. ;)

I've come to the conclusion that Rove's a freakin' genius. 2002 midterms established it. The re-election is re-affirming it.

Posted by: bdog57 at August 20, 2004 1:20 PM

Sun-Tzu:

What I am wondering is, "If a hero speaks, but the MSM resolutely ignores him, will he be heard outside parts of the blogosphere?"

The fascinating thing about it all is that the blogosphere is speaking more loudly and with greater influence with each passing day. The case of the political cartoon cited by Glenn Reynolds (?) that made no sense unless you'd been following the discussion of Mr. Kerry's Cambodian Christmas in the blogosphere is a wonderful case in point.

We have not yet begun to blog.

Posted by: Dave Schuler at August 20, 2004 1:21 PM

I put myself on record many threads ago agreeing with jdm's assessment that this story did not have legs--Boy was I wrong (first time since 1947 as I recall). The story was picked up on the local LA TV show this AM and the Diane Rehm show callers on NPR did nothing but talk about it. The story is out there--and what struck me most about listening to the "commentators" on the NPR piece was how precious little they knew about the facts of the story. What this tells me is that there are a whole lot of people who do get the story outside the MSM. And yes, I am aware of the problem of anecdotal evidence.

Posted by: RogerA at August 20, 2004 1:22 PM

Sun-Tzu, sage advice. The victory dance comes after the election, not before.

Posted by: Pat Curley at August 20, 2004 1:22 PM

The ad certainly is devastating, and this time it's not a he said/he said thing. Kerry's testimony is a fact--it's there in the ad in his own voice. A POW says he was tortured by the enemy to get him to say what Kerry was saying for free. Who's going to call this guy a liar? In fact, who's even going to dare call him a Republican shill?

There is no doubt in my mind that this ad has the power to sway undecideds and even a significant number of conservative and moderate Democrats. As to how much it will actually hurt Kerry, though, is going to depend on what kind of exposure it ends up getting. Apparently CNN has run or will run the ad on the air sometime today, and as part of the story, too--so it's getting aired for free. I rather suspect Fox and MSNBC will do the same. And you can bet Rush and Hannity, et al will be playing it many, many times during the coming weeks. That's on top of the paid-for exposure it will be getting in the swing states.

So we'll see, and it's going to be interesting. Did any of us think two weeks ago that this story would not only still be out there on August 20, but on the front page of the NYT, no less? Okay, so the NYT printed a perverted version of the story, but that was to be expected. The astonishing thing is that they were forced to go near it all.

But they were forced to. And that's a huge story in and of itself.

Posted by: penwil at August 20, 2004 1:26 PM

Fresh Air, yes that is how he pronounced it; I think it's a Boston Brahmin way of avoiding the gutteral "g"; sort of like the way they say "Awnt" instead of Ant (as in Aunt May).

Rick Ballard, love that image!

Posted by: Pat Curley at August 20, 2004 1:28 PM

Sun-Tzu,

Oh, I think this will keep growing. First they attack Kerry with seemingly their weakest point, his record in Vietnam. Doubts still arise. Kerry responds by puffing up his "I am the noblest of warriors" image even more.

Ah, but what wonderful timing for them. Yesterday he responded by snarling turning the boat around and charging his enemies. He seethed at his patriot heroism being questioned. Today he is slammed with his own voice calling his own band of brothers war criminals.

BTW, in not many more days the Republican Convention is going to convene. The convention that protesters have pledged to disrupt. Ya think the image of a young protesting Kerry might get mixed in with any protest caused chaos in NY?

This will get worse for him.

Posted by: ambisinistral at August 20, 2004 1:30 PM

Must. Proof. Read. Better.

Posted by: ambisinistral at August 20, 2004 1:34 PM

Beyond what has been stated so far, I think the factor that presents the most long term political damage for Kerry is the participation of Paul Galanti in this ad.

As I state at the countertop-chronicles, there is simply no way to paint Galanti - one of John McCain's best friends since the days their stay in the Hanoi Hilton together, the Virginia Chair of McCain's presidential campaign, and Democrat Governor Mark Warner's appointee to the Virginia Department of Veterans affairs - as a Bush stooge.

His participation with the Swift Boat Veterans in such a public manner indicates that John McCain is not opposed to efforts to attack John Kerry as the traitorous anti war zealot as opposed to the efforts to question his service.

The New York Times and the Washington Post are going to find this incredibly difficult to spin away.

Posted by: Countertop at August 20, 2004 1:34 PM

Penwil--

I read somewhere today that Kerry's blog only had 34,000 more visits than the Swiftvets (1 million for Kerry and 966,000 for Swiftvets.com--don't know what period).

The Swiftees' website was totally jammed today. The ad download was very slow, even with DSL. I think you will see a tremendous amount of additional contributions coming in and this ad will get a lot of exposure, both paid and unpaid.

Posted by: Fresh Air at August 20, 2004 1:34 PM

The SBFFT story will be, I predict, the lead story on all the Sunday talk shows--the MSM cork will definitely be out of the bottle by Monday.

Posted by: RogerA at August 20, 2004 1:35 PM

If, and its a mighty big if, this ad gets enough play, it will go off like a nuclear bomb in absolutely critical demographics (think Reagan Republican/blue collar Dems) in battleground states (Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, New Mexico).

It neutralizes what Kerry has made the whole basis for his campaign - his Vietnam service - by drawing attention to what he said about that service as soon as he came home. The line about him giving the VC for free what others were tortured for is haunting. Pure genius.

And the set up has been beautiful. They drew Kerry out of the weeds with the first ad, and just as the media blockade was crumbling, they unleash this haymaker.

Posted by: R C Dean at August 20, 2004 1:46 PM

Who's going to call this guy a liar? In fact, who's even going to dare call him a Republican shill?

That one's easy: Al Gore, Begala, Carville, Brazille, u.s.w.

Now I'm wondering if we will see a "health crisis" and Kerry withdrawal.

This is a question for a lawyer, and I ain't one, but... could Kerry withdraw at this point? I'm pretty sure that it's too late to change the candidate in Colorado, at least. I imagine the NJ state supreme "court" could be convinced to do a Toricelli, but if I'm right, many or most states would have to leave him on the ballot. If he withdrew, I think it might just mean the Democrats woul.d be candidate-less in those states in which it's too late to change.

This is a route to near certain electoral defeat.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at August 20, 2004 1:51 PM

All:

I hate to be another (?) wet blanket, but Sun-Tzu is correct. The only people that matter are the undecideds, and if the MSM can make the Swifties seem sufficiently "political" the undecideds will tune it out. That the Swifties are emerging with a second ad certainly gives an impression that there's some 'behind the scenes' organization to this. On some nonpolitical fora I frequent, there's a real idea that the NYT piece "sinks" the Swifties.

Remember "Troopergate"?

M.Simon and Rick B:

Uh... step away from the keyboard. The Democrats will not throw Kerry over the side, nor will he jump. He may well get elected.

Posted by: BobT at August 20, 2004 1:53 PM

I was very surprised by the reaction I had to that ad. JMO, but this will be devastating to anyone still on the fence re: John Kerry.

As for people seeing it... send out the link.

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 20, 2004 1:54 PM

Roger,

I think at this time the guy who is crying is Wesley Clark. He is hunting Chris Lehane. Why? If all this Kerry lies were out in Jan., then the nominee would not be Kerry. Right?

Yours,
Pat.

Posted by: Pat_Henry at August 20, 2004 2:02 PM

Apparently, Galanti, the tortured POW who delivers the Kerry gave it away for free line, is a personal friend of John McCain and worked on McCain's 2000 presidential campaign. What do you want to bet he's all over cable news in the coming week?

If--and I agree it is still a big if--the ad, and the story attached to it, gets enough play and Kerry starts slipping in the polls, then the irony will be espeically delicious that a group of 250 veterans with a war chest of relative peanuts was able to do to Kerry what Michael Moore and his propaganda flick, the billionnaire Soros and Moveon.com, and the DNC and the MSM combined haven't been able to do to Bush.

What's that old Scottish saying . . . something about a one man in the right can stop an army?

Posted by: penwil at August 20, 2004 2:04 PM

Roger, thanks for yet another great analysis. The Democratic Party is getting set to implode as more moderate liberals look with disgust upon the moonbat-infested edifice that was once a bastion of sane liberalism.

Posted by: asher813@aol.com at August 20, 2004 2:05 PM

Bob T.,

So far the effect of the swifties campaign has pretty much followed my expectations. (See Roger's first post on the issue (about 3/4 Aug). What I said then was that WE could move the story. And WE did.

In addition I was predicting a couple of days ago the swifties next move. Which you have seen today.

Kerry is not coming back. He aids torturers. We will get most of the middle and some of his base. No one wants to be associated with a moral pygmy.

--==--

What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 20, 2004 2:07 PM

He may well get elected.

On the basis of his proven leadership abilities? Or do you think his sterling legislative record will carry him through? Or do you think that ABB = 50% plus 1 electoral vote? BTW, I said I thought it was a 1 in 10, that means I'm speculating on the far side. OTOH, I haven't seen any pictures of Siamese John gazing into each others eyes or heard an undying declaration of fealty from Edwards in a bit. Where is Edwards on this? Where is his attack on the evil Vietnam veterans?

Charlie(C),

What would happen if a candidate had a cerebral hemorrhage? I'm no lawyer either but I don't think the election would be postponed.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 20, 2004 2:07 PM

Drudge is reporting Kerry campaign is filing an FEC complaint.

Posted by: RogerA at August 20, 2004 2:14 PM

I think that the whole Vietnam hero thing is something that is deeply imbedded in Kerry's psyche. He wanted to be a war hero and when he came home he found that that was too unpopular. Now is his chance to get something he felt he deserved 30 years ago.

More thoughts on that here

Posted by: David W Justus at August 20, 2004 2:20 PM

RogerA,

If that is correct, the Kerry Campaign just started a battle they didn't want to start:

MR. McCLELLAN: We've already said we weren't involved in any way in these ads. We've made that clear. I do think that Senator Kerry losing his cool should not be an excuse for him to lash out at the President with false and baseless attacks. I mean, where has the Kerry been -- Kerry campaign been for the last year while more than $62 million in funding through these shadowy groups has been used to negatively attack the President. The Kerry campaign has been noticeably silent, and in many instances, they have actually fueled these kinds of attacks by these shadowy groups that are funded by unregulated soft money.

Posted by: so it begins at August 20, 2004 2:20 PM

SIB: true enough; Drudge is light on details, but the allegation seems to be "illegal ties to the RNC." Perhaps the Kerry campaign is basing its complaint (if true) on the basis of NYT reporting! That would be the ultimate irony. More to the point, I do hope this complaint brings up the whole issue of 527s and the DNCs use of them--I agree with you: this is shooting yourself in the foot (or getting shrapnel in your a**)

Posted by: RogerA at August 20, 2004 2:24 PM

M.Simon:

Don't get me wrong, I see little redeeming social value in a Kerry presidency now. But I just don't see the tent folding up.

Rick B.:

Apologies, your "1 in 10" didn't register as I read the comments.

Posted by: BobT at August 20, 2004 2:25 PM

RogerA,

Oh, definitely think they are going to the FEC - it would be out of step for them no too. But they're going to lose that battle BIT TIME! The only way they would be able to prove they were not lies is by signing the 180 and it contradicting EVERYTHING. By the way, I thought they were going to sue all the stations that ran the original ad. Did they back down? Yep, it was a losing battle from the beginning. The reason they are not backing down now is because this is the last nail in the coffin.

Posted by: so it begins at August 20, 2004 2:28 PM

I agree about tempered optimism. Powerful forces are on Kerry's side - very richly endowed 527s, the MSM which may be looking at this as their Alamo, and the whole Democratic Party apparatus.

There are also external forces, who judge Kerry liked we do: quitter. Iran, Baathists and other forces in Iraq, oil producers that are hostile (Iran again, Venezuela, maybe Russia), oil consumers with a similar attitude (China), and of course Al Qaeda and informal terrorists here.

These are powerful ads. The question is: who sees them or hears them. I suspect that in many areas they get a bit of exposure and then word of mouth gets a lot more people interested.

Do people think the SBVT are the only 527 out there? I am helping another one - Vietnam Vets for the Truth and I think there are other veteran groups. SBVT is in the spotlight because of their direct knowledge of John Kerry's service. Other groups, like ours, were created just to counter his outrageous anti-war charges.

From Vietnam Veterans, all I hear is anger against Kerry. Lots of us didn't know until this year that it was Kerry who made those remarks while in the VVAW.

For those who imagine this is a Republican attack machine, they have to understand that none of these veterans groups would even exist if the candidate were not John Kerry. That's the factor that makes such a big lie of the charge of "Republican operatives" or whatever.

I'm sure the big donors would put their money into other groups if Kerry wasn't the nominee, but they wouldn't be angry veterans groups.

Posted by: John Moore ( Useful Fools ) at August 20, 2004 2:28 PM

Drudge is also linking to a Yahoo news (from AP) that quotes a poll saying that half the voters questioned had heard of or seen the first ad. Half is a whole lot, considering that the mighty NYT didn't deign to write word one about it until today.

Also, again according to Drudge, Unfit for Command has over 550,000 copies in print. That is huge for any book.

Posted by: penwil at August 20, 2004 2:30 PM

Drudge headline:

KERRY FILES FEC COMPLAINT OVER SWIFT BOAT ADS

should add... "TWO WEEKS LATE."

HA! Suckers!

Posted by: so it begins at August 20, 2004 2:31 PM

The MSM will rescue Kerry again on this ad - I'd wager that within a week we will see a several thousand word story in the NY Times on atrocities comitted by US troops in Vietnam which will support Kerry's 1971 testimony. They'll bring up My Lai, the recent Pulitzer Prize winning Tiger Force feature from the Toledo Blade, the Phoenix Program, etc which will frame the argument that the Swift Vets are upset with Kerry for telling the truth. Chris Matthews will shout that there is a difference between testifying to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and being tortured to tell the North Vietnamese what they want to hear. Most of the press who were around then remain anti-Vietnam war and they will be able to defend this much more easily than the first round of allegations so I don't think this ad will be as effective as the first one.

Posted by: Southpaw at August 20, 2004 2:35 PM

Wondering if the swifties have another ad planned(possibly focusing on the cambodia in christmas story) There plan and execution has been flawless

Posted by: ieddyi at August 20, 2004 2:40 PM

Responding to various commenters on the NYT article today: The NYT piece does much damage to Kerry and not so much to the SBVs. The SBVs are not running for president, after all; Kerry is. What the NYT article does is give the SBVs a place in the "paper of record" and now they have to be dealt with. They are an albatross around the neck of John Kerry, put there by initially John Kerry himself, and now with the imprimatur of the NYT upon it. The NYT even got rope-a-doped by Thurlow when he called their bluff today and signed to forms to release his records.

BobT: Kerry doesn't have a prayer to get elected unless his campaign starts handling issues professionally. For starters, why did he paint Vietnam so large into the picture of his life at the convention? The arrival in a boat, the "reporting for duty" crap, the fake combat movie, even the "band of brothers" just set him up for what any professional campaigner must have known would be coming: a full out attack on his Vietnam record. And guess what? He had skeletons in his foot locker. And what was it all for? To compare himself favorably to a late 1960's Bush that nobody cares about?

When the SBVs came out with their charges, Kerry should have started distancing himself from Vietnam issue entirely. And he should have rebutted their particulars with generalities. Instead, they have descended to the SBVs' level and are fighting specifics with specifics. "On the watery borders between Cambodia and Vietnam" is the only place Kerry is going to get elected this year.

Posted by: pdq332 at August 20, 2004 2:41 PM

You may be right, Southpaw--but we also have Kerry as a war criminal: killing livestock and torching villages--I dont see how he comes out good in any of this.

Posted by: RogerA at August 20, 2004 2:41 PM

Southpaw,

Its too late - It's WAAAAAYYYY more effective than the first one for anyone who sees it.

By the way, everyone, speaking of Hilary being behind this meltdown of the Kerry Campaign, didn't Kerry say he had a conversation with Bill a number of months ago, who was very "supportive" and gave him some "advice". Was the adive, "Yeah, stick with the 'vietnam' thing. That's the ticket!"

Posted by: so it begins at August 20, 2004 2:42 PM

Bear in mind, ABB voters don't need to switch their vote. They can also just skip voting this year.

Posted by: ambisinistral at August 20, 2004 2:42 PM

ambisinistral,

exactly.

Posted by: so it begins at August 20, 2004 2:44 PM

Here's a very scary thought: in the event Kerry is elected, the people running his campaign will presumably play central roles in his White House.

Posted by: RogerA at August 20, 2004 2:45 PM

What would happen if a candidate had a cerebral hemorrhage? I'm no lawyer either but I don't think the election would be postponed.

I didn't ask if it made sense, I just wondered what the law was.

Given the Toricelli example, I wouldn't say it's impossible ... but I bet, in 50 states, that it'd be real hard.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at August 20, 2004 2:46 PM

What would happen if a candidate had a cerebral hemorrhage? I'm no lawyer either but I don't think the election would be postponed.

Uh, you're not suggesting that someone would hit Kerry in the head to change the nominee, are you?

;-)

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at August 20, 2004 2:47 PM

First thing- Kerry is not going to withdraw, no matter what.

One thing that needs to be kept in perspective is this: Kerry is a crappy candidate- WITHOUT any of this Swift Vets stuff. A long-time Massachussetts Senator with no accomplishments and no charisma? Please.

His conduct in Vietnam and before the Senate only make things worse. Perhaps more importantly than the direct damage they do, the ads and the surrounding controversy puts Kerry on the defensive and keeps him off message. It also keeps the papers scrambling to defend him, instead of attacking Bush with that space.

Tactically, Kerry is indeed in extreme trouble. He won't drop below 40% on election day, but he might not be much higher either. My prediction hasn't changed since the day Kerry was nominated; the Swift Vets aren't so much sinking Kerry's campaign as making sure it never rises.

Posted by: youwouldno at August 20, 2004 2:48 PM

And for those of you who have seen "Napleon Dynamite" and enjoyed it as much as I did, I have 2 words to describe those running the Kerry Campaign:

Friggin' idiots!

Posted by: so it begins at August 20, 2004 2:48 PM

youwouldno,

Brilliant analysis and well written, especially:

"...the Swift Vets aren't so much sinking Kerry's campaign as making sure it never rises."

Posted by: so it begins at August 20, 2004 2:50 PM

Mike -

I also watched Tom Oliphant's pathetic performance last night. Instapundit has some good links with transcript excerpts.

What I found most distressing was that Mr. Oliphant failed to make an important disclosure. Now, remember how he kept making the case for the "daily press" as the best arbiter for political issues?

Then why didn't Tom Oliphant disclose the fact that his daughter is a "writer" for the Kerry-Edwards campaign?

From the linked "The American Prospect" column:

I like Kerry a lot. I admire how he got to this place. And I think he is well-prepared to preside over the sausage making that lies ahead of him if he wins this fall. It is likely to be a tough grind -- more or less the way he likes it. (His successful discussions with John Edwards about a partnership displayed a sensible pol with the confidence to reach beyond his familiar world; the fact that my genius daughter helped discover “two Americas” for Edwards and now writes for the ticket only proves again that she has figured things out faster than I have.)

Granted, Mr. Oliphant is an op-ed writer, but for him to make the case that the "daily press" knows best is a hoot.

Posted by: mrp at August 20, 2004 2:54 PM

Addressing Roger's question above:

"...why [did] the Senator chose to base his campaign on his Vietnam service[?]"

Instead, they grabbed the nettle and emphasized Kerry's war service. The plan was to proclaim Kerry a hero and then rely on a cooperative press that would (1) bury the issue of his anti-war activities, and (2) if it wouldn't stay buried, marginalize the opponents who brought it up. The template: "Medal-Winning War Hero Attacked By Malcontents." (And this is exactly what the press has been doing: The Boston Globe story that painted the swiftie as repudiating his affadavit, the Washington Post story that went after John O'Neil, and today's NY Times article ("it's all a Republican plot!") are the move to stage 2.)

Unfortunately for the campaign, it appears that they didn't anticipate a direct attack on Kerry's war record. Nor did they anticipate the collaborative work by the blogosphere in parsing all the charges and countercharges. And needless to say, they're still being blindsided by the talk radio+blogosphere assault on the MSM. And now it's going to come to a boil over the issue of Kerry's patriotism and betrayal of his comrades... just what they'd hoped to avoid.

Somebody needs to be taking notes for a "Making of the President, 2004." Even so far, the story would be fascinating.

Posted by: Old Grouch at August 20, 2004 2:54 PM

Southpaw:

Well, the press will cover Vietnam now, thirty years later, as they did then: an utter fiasco.

Of course, the reality may not quite mesh with that, but who cares, eh?

--Hue---rubbleized by the US military's indiscriminate use of firepower.

--Tet---a glorious victory for the VC.

--Phoenix Program---CIA death squads.

Let us never mention the 3000 or so dead South Vietnamese civilians in Hue, executed by the VC for the crime of being teachers. This, as part of an offensive that gutted the VC infrastructure. Phoenix=death squads? One wonders what to make of their VC/NVA counterparts.

But then, we've already seen the MSM in action in this regard. Does anyone remember "Operation Northwind"? You remember, the use of nerve agents by the US, an operation that CNN covered in depth? Except it never happened.

Or how about the coverage of the "atrocities" at Nogun-ri during the Korean War, complete w/ tearful vet apologizing to South Korean survivors? Except that it was a tragedy (soldiers shooting by accident), not an atrocity (soldiers cold-bloodedly executing civilians). And the chief accuser, Ed Daily? Not at the incident at all. Not that the press paid nearly as much attention to his fall, as they did his earlier tales.

So, Southpaw, I fully expect the press to promulgate as many stories about American atrocities in Vietnam as they can possibly find. I suspect some might even be true.

Posted by: Sun-Tzu at August 20, 2004 2:54 PM

RE: CNN's Wolfe Blitzer. Now we know what the MSM's spin is going to be, its essentially to take the focus away from SBVT charges and focus on the "web" of connections between them and the Bush Campaign. I think this is likely to fail completely, and will only further the demise of MSM as they openly demonstrate their OWN web of connections! Now I know that in the two camps, no votes will change, but I worry about the media's ability to cast such a confusing shadow that the swing voter just gets disgusted and stays away from the polls. Maybe the Kerry campaign is willing to drive away ALL swing voters in the hope the hard-core ABB's will comprise more voters than Bush supporters. Very interesting!! Also, is anyone familiar with the FEC investigation that will now proceed? Will they actually address content of the charges, or is it strictly testing the theory that Carl Rove did it?

Posted by: david at August 20, 2004 2:54 PM

ambisinistral,

Exactly. It definitely isn't going to drive up support for W but a whole bunch of Kerry's always weak support will just stay at home. The broken glass ABB'ers are 13-15% but there's another 20% that are not "solid" at all. I don't quite get the FEC suit. It won't hold up and the attention that it draws to the ads and book just can't help.

BTW ALL, the ads can only run for about 12 more days. I doubt that there will be a third. I'd expect money to go into a wider distribution of this second ad.

BobT - S'OK. Not like I haven't done the same thing about 1100 times.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 20, 2004 2:54 PM

There are some points here that call out for clarification. First, doesn't anyone here feel Kerry's very opening words are being presented in a misleading context? The exact quote as spoken by Kerry begins:

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads....

To begin Kerry's quote without context is an act of deviousness, is it not? After all, it leaves the decided impression that he himself is making the charge of cutting off ears, et. al., against his fellow soldiers, while in reality he is telling the committee that these are statements made by the veterans themselves. So right away we are on a dishonest footing. Put into context, the ad is almost totally neutralized, its fundamental point -- that Kerry got up and accused his fellow veterans -- shattered.

Relatedly, a maddening tendency I'm seeing is to indict the MSM (as you call it) for not telling the Xmas in Cambodia story, or at least for not telling it the way you feel they should tell it, i.e., in a manner that will portray Kerry as a liar unfit to serve as president. This goes against the function of the media, which is not to regurgitate any party's talking points, but to inform the public of news and, in some cases, to provide the evidence necessary to determine what actually happened. The implication that the presses should stop because some largely discredited men being directed by Republican PR dowager Merrie Spaeth and age-old Kerry bete noire John O'Neill merely because they assert Kerry may have misstated the date when he said he was in Cambodia some 36 years ago....well, it's just a touch peculiar. Normally the press wouldn't even consider such nonsense.

The reason the mainstream media are being more cautious and resistant to such blatant smokescreens, I surmise, is that it learned from Bush's earlier smokescreen attacks against John McCail -- also organized by, you guessed it, Merrie Spaeth! One needn't be a Rhodes scholar to see that this is coming out at a most critical moment to distract the voting public from issues that truly matter to them, like healthcare, our involvement in Iraq, tax cuts for the rich, the bloated deficits, the poor jobs reports. Little things, like that. But instead, they want us to focus on the trivial, the nonsensical, the irrelevant. Now, if they really had solid evidence, as opposed to personal recollections that seem to shift daily (see today's NYT article for proof) by men who hold a deep personal grudge against Kerry based on a (mis)perception he betrayed them -- if there was real evidence, this might be a story. But it would have to be evidence of something significant, not that he was in Cambodia a few weeks later than he said. For the media to print such nonsense would make our newspapers a pile of worthless grafitti.

Well, anyway, commenters here are calling the ad "devastating." I say it's just like all the other bush attack ads (and it is that, whether he says so or not), dishonest and disingenuous and orchestrated to evoke a gut emotion (and in that respect it works, at least for those who don't think for themselves and look deeper behind the blanket allegations). But most of us are immune to it by now. The undecideds don't care; they'll vote the economy, and the war will be a big part of that. You can high-five one another about what a great ad this is, but it's just a slick example of old-fashioned smear. Throw as much mud as you can against the wall and hope some of it sticks. One day, and not that long from now, we'll look back at this with an incredible sense of shame and sadness, and wonder how it was possible.

Posted by: Richardphx at August 20, 2004 2:55 PM

"we'll look back at this with an incredible sense of shame and sadness"

Does the frog in your pocket have a name?

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 20, 2004 3:03 PM

Well Rick, I'm afraid that's the kind of response I was expecting, though I was hoping maybe I'd be surprised.

Posted by: Richardphx at August 20, 2004 3:08 PM

Sorry if this is a repeat, but I'm only halfway thru the comments.

Today, Malkin was interviewed by Rush for 40 minutes. Rush played the audio clips of Matthews' meltdown - actually us older Boomers would have called it outright rudeness.

Get this: Mathews told her to leave the set at the commercial break.

Together, they gave Mathews a well-deserved spanking.

Posted by: geoffg at August 20, 2004 3:11 PM

Richardphx: The thrust of the NYT article is that is funded by republicans--that is a blinding flash of the obvious; I just bet that if the NYT put the same amount of effort into looking at the Democrat 572 they would find they were funded by democrats.

Your point about taking Kerry's statement in context is indeed interesting: you may be a bit young to remember, but the VVAW did not investigate these charges but simply took these folks at their word. I will tell you that US policy and commanders neither condoned nor encourage atrocities.

Posted by: RogerA at August 20, 2004 3:11 PM

RogerA - you may be right, the anti-war faction may decide they can't vote for a self-admitted war criminal. On the other hand, they may not place blame for war crimes in Vietnam on LBJ/Nixon rather than Kerry and the people who served. Let's not forget their off the charts Bush hatred either.

so it begins - I'm not so sure. The first ad is a direct hit on Kerry's credibility, the second one doesn't argue that Kerry's testimony was false but that they are angry at him for saying what he said. A few MSM pieces on some Vietnam atrocities and the issue will be that the SWIFT vets are angry at Kerry for telling the truth. I just don't think that will get very far with swing voters. There's also the "cultural factor" that the swift vets are up against - Vietnam has been portrayed in films and books as a dirty, brutal war. Kerry's 1971 testimony will not seem out of place to those whose only knowledge of Vietnam is Platoon and The Things They Carried.

Posted by: Southpaw at August 20, 2004 3:16 PM

Richardpx:

I think you have made the best argument that can be made by the Kerry camp in response to this ad. In fact it sounds as if it has been well crafted by a professional with the same type of experience (except on the other side) that you attribute to Ms. Spaeth. I predict we will be hearing many of these talking points soon.

I have read many times Mr. Kerry's full testimony. It is widely available.

It has always seemed clear to me (and I think to reasonable people) that his intent was to vouch for the "testimony" he related to the Senate committee as proving the allegations he so calmly listed. This, in turn, evidenced his clear intent to convey the impression that the commission of his litany of war crimes was widespread and pervasive among all of our troops over the years they were sent to and served in Vietnam.

This impression, of course, was false.

I believe this ad accurately conveys in one minute the deep and abiding contempt many Vietnam Veterans feel about this very public moment in Mr. Kerry's career, and the reason they feel justified in feeling and expressing that contempt.

That truth (and it is powerful truth) is something that Mr. Kerry's supporters must wrestle with in the next few months. That truth is the primary reason I have never been one of Mr. Kerry's supporters for president.

Posted by: vnjagvet at August 20, 2004 3:21 PM

John Kerry smeared, maligned, denigrated, lied about, and dishonored every Vietnam vet through his willful neglect in verification of accusations made in the Winter Soldier episode. He is not fit to serve and I have no problem saying it.

Have you read Kerry's first book, "American Soldier"? There are plenty of excerpts available. Hiding behind "he was only repeating" what other s "testified" to is as shabby a tactic as any of your assertions would be if they were true.

Take a look at what you quoted and tell me what "testified to" means. Where are those valiant witnesses that Kerry quoted? It was made up crap then, he knew it at the time and he has never repudiated the lies he told. That is what is worthy of incredible shame and sadness. Not his inability to confront the depth of his own depravity.

In short - shove it.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 20, 2004 3:21 PM

Sun-Tzu

I fully expect the press to promulgate as many stories about American atrocities in Vietnam as they can possibly find.

That would be extremely stupid of them.

Such a campaign would be viewed as an hostile action by the many Vietnam vets in this country--and probably all the other vets, too. And they would not take it lying down.

Kerry would not survive the resulting backlash. The media might not, either.

But the MSM might actually be stupid enough to go that way. Not stupid--let's say "insulated from reality."

Posted by: Bostonian at August 20, 2004 3:22 PM

I don’t know, you add these up and you have to ask some honest questions about what the truth in this matter really is.

Is John O’Neill a truthful man?:

Link...

Link...

Link...
-

Hoffman’s Allegations
Link...

--
Elliott’s conflicting statements:
Elliott had previously defended Kerry on that score when his record was questioned during his 1996 Senate campaign. At that time Elliott came to Boston and said Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star. And as recently as June, 2003, Elliott called Kerry's Silver Star "well deserved" and his action "courageous" for beaching his boat in the face of an ambush:
Elliott (Boston Globe, June 2003): I ended up writing it up for a Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second thoughts at all about that. . . . (It) was pretty courageous to turn into an ambush even though you usually find no more than two or three people there.

-
On Thurlow:
Thurlow's citation - which the Post said it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act - says that "all units began receiving enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks" after the first explosion. The citation describes Thurlow as leaping aboard the damaged PCF-3 and rendering aid "while still under enemy fire," and adds: "His actions and courage in the face of enemy fire . . . were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service."
A separate document that recommended Thurlow for that decoration states that all Thurlow's actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire." It was signed by Elliott.

Plus, if there was no enemy fire, why did Thurlow keep his Bronze Star?

Link...

-
And, along with today’s NYTimes article, this link provides a good overall summary:
Link...

Posted by: doublecola at August 20, 2004 3:26 PM

Does anyone know how many Vietnam Vets are now alive?

Posted by: vnjagvet at August 20, 2004 3:26 PM

"To begin Kerry's quote without context is an act of deviousness, is it not?"

Richardphx,

Well, I think they only have a limited amount of time, so they tailor the ad to have the maximum effect they're looking for. I'm sure they hope that the circumstances of Kerry's antiwar activities get further discussed. In fact Kerry and his group made a large number of war crimes charges, none of which they ever made any attempt to substantiate.

It also might interest you to know that their are films of John Kerry saying that he himself committed warcrimes. I'm sure the Swift Vets hope that gets discussed as seriously by the MSM I'm sure you'll agree it should.

The Christmas in Cambodia story is relevent, particularily in light of his later war crimes charges, in that he claims that was the night that he had an epiphany. That was the night when he realized how wrong the Vietnam war was. He has repeatedly sold the Christmas in Cambodia story as a major turning point in his life, so yes... I do find it odd, and very puzzling, that it never occured.

Perhaps the press should report news instead of filter it for us poor dimwits?

As for your last paragraph, we shall see...

Posted by: ambisinistral at August 20, 2004 3:27 PM

DC--you are using the wrong talking points--they were for a few threads ago. Check Richardphx for current talking points.

Posted by: RogerA at August 20, 2004 3:29 PM

Sorry about the last post...no links and all. Another long day. Have a great weekend all!

DC

I don’t know, you add these up and you have to ask some honest questions about what the truth in this matter really is.

Is John O’Neill a truthful man?:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408180004

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408130010

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2004/08/06/kerry_smear/

-
Hoffman’s Allegations

http://mediamatters.org/items/200406020006

Elliott’s conflicting statements:
Elliott had previously defended Kerry on that score when his record was questioned during his 1996 Senate campaign. At that time Elliott came to Boston and said Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star. And as recently as June, 2003, Elliott called Kerry's Silver Star "well deserved" and his action "courageous" for beaching his boat in the face of an ambush:
Elliott (Boston Globe, June 2003): I ended up writing it up for a Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second thoughts at all about that. . . . (It) was pretty courageous to turn into an ambush even though you usually find no more than two or three people there.
-
On Thurlow:
Thurlow's citation - which the Post said it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act - says that "all units began receiving enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks" after the first explosion. The citation describes Thurlow as leaping aboard the damaged PCF-3 and rendering aid "while still under enemy fire," and adds: "His actions and courage in the face of enemy fire . . . were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service."
A separate document that recommended Thurlow for that decoration states that all Thurlow's actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire." It was signed by Elliott.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html

-
And, along with today’s NYTimes article, this link provides a good overall summary:
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

Posted by: doublecola at August 20, 2004 3:35 PM

vnjagvet,

I believe that John Moore uses a figure of 3 million and notes that 8 million in total served during that period. I don't recall him sourcing the quote but he is very thorough. I'm sure he'll drop by shortly and provide a rebuttal to Richardphx that will provide additional food for thought.

RogerA,

That was funny.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 20, 2004 3:35 PM

Join the protest.

I just donated $50 to the Swift Boat Vets to keep their ads coming. I guess that makes me a front for the Bush Campaign.

I prefer to think of it as a protest against censorship by the liberal media. I don't know how else to stand up to these creeps. The masks are off, now. These Ellsworth Tooheys have dropped all pretense of objectivity and impartial coverage of the news. I want to make them pay.

If you all do too, go to http://www.swiftvets.com/

Posted by: AST at August 20, 2004 3:36 PM

southpaw,

That's an extremely cynical analysis of the American electorate.

Here is a poll question that should be asked:

Who do you respect more?

a) Vietnam Veterans
b) Kerry campaign leaders

Anyone want to dispute the high majority (at least 80-20) would be for "a)"? There is a lot more respect for these guys than you give this nation credit for. It is being proven and it will be confrimed Nov. 2.

Posted by: so it begins at August 20, 2004 3:38 PM

DC--you are using the wrong talking points--they were for a few threads ago. Check Richardphx for current talking points.

Talking points--Is that what facts are called?

Posted by: doublecola at August 20, 2004 3:42 PM

Roger A.

Thanks.

Posted by: vnjagvet at August 20, 2004 3:48 PM

DC: my point was that those things you call facts have been discussed on previous threads--this thread is about the SBVFT second ad. It has to do with Kerry's 1971 testimony. If you have any facts relevant to that, please air them.

Posted by: RogerA at August 20, 2004 3:50 PM

Richardphx

We may be in the same town, but not the same world.

I've studied the Kerry speech for some time. There is no question that Kerry is telling the world that all Vietnam Vets and Soldiers still in the field engaged in atrocities as normal practice. Look at the clause where he claims that a monster composed of millions of damaged vets will be created - damaged by what they were forced to do. That isn't dependent on Winter Soldier. Look at the other charges Kerry made. I suspect you will be hearing about them in the future. Also, are you aware that not a single one of the Winter Soldier allegations could be verified, but during the attempt a major number of them were found to be misrepresenting their service (like not having been to 'Nam at all, or not even being in the service, or having been to 'Nam but not when and where their allegations took place).

Nope, the ad is honest. The claims of the POWs are honest (we've known about them for some time - want some more? I've got one by a POW who was also a Senator).

As to this being a Bush attack ad, that is utter nonsense. That would require cooperation, which these days, thanks to our idiot senator, would be felonious.

Read all of Kerry's speech that day. It doesn't take him long to get away from masking his statements behind the pretenders at the Winter Soldier "investigation."

You suggest a fight on levels that really matter - that's what Democrat's say when it is shown their guy is lacking in the character department. Bush and Kerry are talking about that. Character counts. If you elect a person whose only principle is opportunism, then you elect a man with unpredictable behavior. That is why character counts.

But I remember the vicious attacks against Bush's service. Those attacks had the full MSM pack in full howl, looking everywhere. As a former military aviator with both active and reserve time, I knew from the start that it was all BS. Hell, there's no way anyone can prove that ever attended my last duty station - and I never even got paid. If I had been killed on my last flight (as I almost was), they would have had trouble accounting for me.

The Dems have spend many tens of millions running vicious attack ads against Bush's honorable service. With all that money, and no scruples whatsoever, they were unable to find one person who had a problem with Bush's service. And yet SBVT has 60 people who served with Kerry who have problems and have signed affidavits. I was surprised when I found out they were going after his service record - I had no idea that even his in-country service had been inflated, but I have personally interacted with enough of these people to know that they are, as a group, trustworthy.

Furthermore, this attack didn't come out of nowhere. SBVT gave a press conference on May 5 which outlined some of their charges, including the historical and stunning event of the entire chain of command of an officer denouncing his fitness for service. The MSN, as expected by the Kerry crew, mostly ignored it. I did a nexis search, and the only TV network to cover it was CBS, and they ran a smear piece. AP spiked it entirely. In other words, the MSN performed their expected function for the Democrats, minimizing and distorting anti-Kerry charges.

So the Swiftees had to make an end run. O'Neil and Corsi wen't off to write the book. At some point, ads became possible. The launch of the book was also ignored by the media (even while it was #1 at Amazon), but the ad was too effective.

Other than blogspace and email, only Fox viewers would have any idea that this tidal wave of accusations was coming.

If I subscribed to one of the newspapers, I'd be damned upset that they kept this from me.

As for the Christmas story, nice excuse, no cigar. The fact that a Senator has been lying about a story he had used to attack US policy is, in fact, news.

You say: Republican PR dowager Merrie Spaeth and age-old Kerry bete noire John O'Neill

Spaeth is a PR person. She is the widow of O'Neill's partner. Obviously O'Neill already knew her, and in fact used her in his private law practice. Do you expect him to go hire a Democrat PR firm?

John O'Neill did not spend the last 33 years stalking Kerry. Rather, he formed a successful law firm. To hear the media (and you), O'Neil has been after Kerry forever. Furthermore, he is hardly a Republican operative. According to what he told me and others, if Edwards had been the candidate, he might have voted for him. In the past he has supported people from both parties and Perot (I have to subtract some points for that one).

You imply that the remembrances seem to change daily. Well, the MSM is succeeding with you. Study it a little more carefully and you would stop saying that. 60 witnesses, one guy who changed a couple of words but not his damaging-to-kerry conclusion = change daily? Pathetic.

Posted by: John Moore ( Useful Fools ) at August 20, 2004 3:50 PM

Richardphx: " . . . it leaves the decided impression that he himself is making the charge . . .

Okay, I've read the whole thing and that's still the impression that I got. To quote Kerry's very words right back at you: "I would like to talk, representing all those veterans . . ."

From Webster's,
represent, vt. : To bring clearly before the mind: cause to be known, felt, or apprehended. To serve as sign or symbol. To exhibit by delineation, depiction, or betrayal. To exhibit to another mind in language: give one's own impressions and judgement of. To serve as a speciman, example, or instance of . . .

Richardphx, you might want to read Galanti's account of the "impression" Kerry's words apparently had on his North Vietnamese captors, since they showed those very words of Kerry's to the man while they were torturing him. Now there is war story that one could probably say was seared, seared into the memory. I rather expect Galanti will be "representing" that story a number of times over the coming week(s)