Second Swift-Boat ad against Kerry

[alchemize]

Link

I know I can't contain any of you , but I'd prefer you discuss this ad and it's contents. It really is a very powerful ad.

While I think that the medal criticisms they are doing are pretty shameful (and quite possibly untrue), I think they have every right to run an ad about how they felt on his activities after the war.

Edited out anything that could be construed as an attack. I'll save those for later

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

These SwiftBoat Vets should have never put out the first ad at all. It is obvious that their main gripes with Kerry lie with his AFTERWAR statements. This is what they should have been talking about the entire time, not lying about his combat experiences.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
These SwiftBoat Vets should have never put out the first ad at all. It is obvious that their main gripes with Kerry lie with his AFTERWAR statements. This is what they should have been talking about the entire time, not lying about his combat experiences.

Thanks for talking about this ad :roll: And I generally agree with you.

So...what's your opinion of THIS AD?

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
These SwiftBoat Vets should have never put out the first ad at all. It is obvious that their main gripes with Kerry lie with his AFTERWAR statements. This is what they should have been talking about the entire time, not lying about his combat experiences.

Thanks for talking about this ad :roll: And I generally agree with you.

So...what's your opinion of THIS AD?

Well.... if I had to guess, I would say that he thinks the ad is total crap and full of mindless bias. I would like to agree too.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
These SwiftBoat Vets should have never put out the first ad at all. It is obvious that their main gripes with Kerry lie with his AFTERWAR statements. This is what they should have been talking about the entire time, not lying about his combat experiences.

Thanks for talking about this ad :roll: And I generally agree with you.

So...what's your opinion of THIS AD?

Well.... if I had to guess, I would say that he thinks the ad is total crap and full of mindless bias. I would like to agree too.

So you think that the PoW didn't hear Kerry's speech from his captors? He's lying about that?

 

[TuxDave]

Anyways.... ok, now for a more detailed analysis.

#1) Vietnam was messy as hell. Napalm... was messier.
#2) They did raze small villages. Zippo raids if anything.

 

[DealMonkey]

Well, the ad is automatically misleading because they show clips of Kerry's testimony out of context. Kerry was relating what others had told him had occurred in Vietnam, not what he had seen or experienced himself. Not only that, clearly some war crimes really had been committed in Vietnam, so now where does that leave us?

I guess Bush/Cheney has their swiftboats for slander group and Kerry/Edwards has their MoveOn.org and the associated 'AWOL' ad. Are they even now, or does the Kerry/Edwards campaign need to dig up a bunch of Texas ANG people that can make the talk radio circuit claiming they didn't see Bush for a good part of a year from '72-'73?

In other words, do we have a tit-for-tat smear campaign in effect? Who's winning?

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Watched it 3 times.

Didn't like it.

Left me with a bad taste in my mouth and I didn't feel compelled to change my opinion of the whole matter.

I don't fault Kerry for speaking as he did. I do feel compassion for those that were demoralized. I also understand that I don't quite have the capacity to truly understand what went on in the hearts and minds of the soldiers having had zero combat experience.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: alchemize

So you think that the PoW didn't hear Kerry's speech from his captors? He's lying about that?

DealMonkey said it better than I ever could. The ad is definitely misleading.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Well, the ad is automatically misleading because they show clips of Kerry's testimony out of context. Kerry was relating what others had told him had occurred in Vietnam, not what he had seen or experienced himself. Not only that, clearly some war crimes really had been committed in Vietnam, so now where does that leave us?

I guess Bush/Cheney has their swiftboats for slander group and Kerry/Edwards has their MoveOn.org and the associated 'AWOL' ad. Are they even now, or does the Kerry/Edwards campaign need to dig up a bunch of Texas ANG people that can make the talk radio circuit claiming they didn't see Bush for a good part of a year from '72-'73?

In other words, do we have a tit-for-tat smear campaign in effect? Who's winning?

Well, we are getting closer to an opinion. A spun one, but closer Now, what of the PoW's thoughts on what Kerry said and how his captors used it against them?

I assume there already is a slander AWOL group - heck the head of the DNC has come out and said it more than a few times.

Who's winning? I declare the american people have lost, because issues aren't being discussed. But that's another thread

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Well, the ad is automatically misleading because they show clips of Kerry's testimony out of context. Kerry was relating what others had told him had occurred in Vietnam, not what he had seen or experienced himself. Not only that, clearly some war crimes really had been committed in Vietnam, so now where does that leave us?

I guess Bush/Cheney has their swiftboats for slander group and Kerry/Edwards has their MoveOn.org and the associated 'AWOL' ad. Are they even now, or does the Kerry/Edwards campaign need to dig up a bunch of Texas ANG people that can make the talk radio circuit claiming they didn't see Bush for a good part of a year from '72-'73?

In other words, do we have a tit-for-tat smear campaign in effect? Who's winning?

Well, we are getting closer to an opinion. A spun one, but closer Now, what of the PoW's thoughts on what Kerry said and how his captors used it against them?

I assume there already is a slander AWOL group - heck the head of the DNC has come out and said it more than a few times.

Who's winning? I declare the american people have lost, because issues aren't being discussed. But that's another thread

My thoughts is that the POW was offended by Kerry's speech because he felt it was a personal attack on him. If you were placed in a very stressful and scary situation, fighting for your country, and you committed war crimes as a result. It's hard to admit that you did something wrong and it's hard to bear when you hear someone say it for you.

 

[alchemize]

My thoughts is that the POW was offended by Kerry's speech because he felt it was a personal attack on him. If you were placed in a very stressful and scary situation, fighting for your country, and you committed war crimes as a result. It's hard to admit that you did something wrong and it's hard to bear when you hear someone say it for you.

So you think the PoW in the ad committed war crimes then. You are a class act. :roll:

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: alchemize

My thoughts is that the POW was offended by Kerry's speech because he felt it was a personal attack on him. If you were placed in a very stressful and scary situation, fighting for your country, and you committed war crimes as a result. It's hard to admit that you did something wrong and it's hard to bear when you hear someone say it for you.

So you think the PoW in the ad committed war crimes then. You are a class act. :roll:

Wow... you ask for an opinion and now you're upset. Geez, what a wonderful debate. Let me ask you this, in Vietnam, did we all fight nice and clean?

Edit: You're taking too long so I may as well put in my followup question. The answer is NO, we did NOT all fight very nice. Can I blame them? No, because based on what veterans tell us, Vietnam sucked. But it takes a strong character to admit mistakes nonetheless.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

It's obvious in Vietnam some horrible atrocities were committed by both sides, this tends to happen in wars if you didn't know. Sheesh, look at our own troops today in Iraq, absolutely appaling what some of them have done in the prisoner abuse scandal.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
It's obvious in Vietnam some horrible atrocities were committed by both sides, this tends to happen in wars if you didn't know. Sheesh, look at our own troops today in Iraq, absolutely appaling what some of them have done in the prisoner abuse scandal.

Exactly, I agree. As I said in my edit, it's expected that people commit horrible things given horrible situations. That still doesn't make them 'good act'.

 

[KarenMarie]

This ad is not as compeling as the original.

What it doesn't say, speaks volumes... The fact that none of what Kerry said was untrue.

They all agreed that Kerry betrayed them. But none of them said Kerry lied about anything he claimed. Still, this is gonna keep coming. More and more and dirtier and dirtier.


edit for bad spelling

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Well, the ad is automatically misleading because they show clips of Kerry's testimony out of context. Kerry was relating what others had told him had occurred in Vietnam, not what he had seen or experienced himself. Not only that, clearly some war crimes really had been committed in Vietnam, so now where does that leave us?

I guess Bush/Cheney has their swiftboats for slander group and Kerry/Edwards has their MoveOn.org and the associated 'AWOL' ad. Are they even now, or does the Kerry/Edwards campaign need to dig up a bunch of Texas ANG people that can make the talk radio circuit claiming they didn't see Bush for a good part of a year from '72-'73?

In other words, do we have a tit-for-tat smear campaign in effect? Who's winning?

Well, we are getting closer to an opinion. A spun one, but closer Now, what of the PoW's thoughts on what Kerry said and how his captors used it against them?

I assume there already is a slander AWOL group - heck the head of the DNC has come out and said it more than a few times.

Who's winning? I declare the american people have lost, because issues aren't being discussed. But that's another thread

The POW's opinion are just that -- opinion. Obviously McCain wouldn't agree and that would be his opinion. Certainly these guys are entitled to their opinions whatever they may be.

Yet, at the same time, Vietnam was an enormously unpopular war with outrageous costs in human life. Kerry testified in order to put an end to an unjust war. By relating what others had told him they had experienced first-hand, Kerry was simply adding impetus to that movement.

What if what he was testifying to was true? Should everyone simply remain silent about these alleged war crimes? Should everyone involved in and who knew about the Abu Ghraib attrocities -- who knew about the torture and murder of Iraqis remained silent too? At what point do you do the right thing Alchemize? At what point do you use everything in your power to try and stop an unjust war?

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

We'd all like to say lets focus on the ISSUES instead of dirty politics, but lets face it: the American people aren't interested in the issues. They want to hear dirty accusations, slander, and cropped up charges. The media has become a slave to this desire. If the media was so concerned over these baseless accusations they would make a non-issue out of it. But let's face it, they need this negative campaigning in order to keep those ratings up. Very few people, and I find myself sometimes being thrown into this category, care about the issues these days.

 

[Todd33]

More slander and stuff out of context. One half sentence here, one sentence there. He was a young guy against a war that many felt was bad. He served with honer and then spoke out against it telling nothing but the truth and stuff many vets have said. The part about torture is pure BS. One guy giving testomony to his government does not induce torture or sell out anyone. It was 35 years ago and it's about as relavent as Bush doing coke and driving drunk. What they did as young men does not mean much to the future of America in 2004.

Bush and Co. need to live in the now and run on the issues.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Link

I know I can't contain any of you , but I'd prefer you discuss this ad and it's contents. It really is a very powerful ad.

While I think that the medal criticisms they are doing are pretty shameful (and quite possibly untrue), I think they have every right to run an ad about how they felt on his activities after the war.

Edited out anything that could be construed as an attack. I'll save those for later

I 100% agree with you on dragging his post war antics though the mud as long as they can run with it and as long as W has NO ties to them at all. Short of that, they need to STFU about his tour of duty.

 

[alchemize]

Rather than start another thread, I saw this on swiftvets (actuall a link from fark) - thought it was another powerful image.

Photo with kerry and "unfit"

And this one

 

[umbrella39]

That is a picture of him with his EQUALS or superiors if not mistaken. As noted here countless times, those in the picture do not respect his post war postition nor are they the men that served under his leadership.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
That is a picture of him with his EQUALS or superiors if not mistaken. As noted here countless times, those in the picture do not respect his post war postition nor are they the men that served under his leadership.

Correct - they were his peers and not his superior officers or the men that served with him. Which, to me, says a lot. I would hope that in any of the pictures of myself and all my peers, I would have more than one person that supported me.

Edit: I'll add to that. I think the people that served *under* him generally respected him. But not those that worked *with* him. It is good to know that those on his boat respected him, IMHO.

I'll add this picture, pulled from Fark also Definition of "served together"

 

[Ogi]

funny picture but it's also the same view i have (i'm in military service), i don't consider people i haven't worked with directly people that i've served with, and by working with directly i mean on/at my unit.

Ogi

 

[smashp]

Aint Democracy A B!tch. Evil deeds come to the forefront.

The Whistleblower always gets treated worse than the guilty parties.

Kerry HAD a conscience about the actions of SOME of the soldiers in that nasty war.

The soldiers that are mad at Kerry only care that someone "Betrayed" their little group rather than that he did the right thing.

Most soldiers didnt committed these evil acts, but they did go on (Cough*** Abu Garib *** Cough)


Thats My opinion of this shameful, misguided ad and Kerrys bold and brave actions.