Skip to comments.Riding the Titanic down the Rapids
Posted on 08/22/2004 7:21:19 PM PDT by Maigrey
Riding the Titanic down the Rapids
Editorial by the Gonzo News Service
22 August 2004
So. Have you heard the latest political news? A bunch of retired military veterans are running paid advertisements on television denouncing the actions of a fellow retired military officer for whom they served with. These scathing announcements are causing uproar with the politics of the season, with one candidate threatening to sue to keep the advertisements from being heard.
Think this is a new tactic for this election season? Nope. Think this is against the incumbent candidate? Think again. The actions in question are being raised by the democratic candidate for President, John Kerry.
For the last 12 months, non-profit non-affiliated political action groups (also known as 527 groups) have been running advertisements aimed at eroding the support for the current administration, while at the same time, building support for the democratic candidate. While taking in $63 million dollars, these 527 groups, mainly the MoveOn.Org and Media Fund and partially sponsored by the currency speculator George Soros, have produced paid advertisement by the dozen, denouncing the president (but not the office) and his actions, with the economy, the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and various other issues. One advertisement, which was encroaching on slanderous, compared the current president to Adolph Hitler.
How did the President react to these ads? Did he threaten to sue television stations that ran the ads? Did he tell the people behind the ads to cease and desist? Did he say that they were the product of a liberal agenda?
No. He didn't react. His lack of reaction, which falls into the damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't category, infuriated the advertisers and media further, because they (meaning reporters and other various talking heads) did not hold the power and prominence that they did with the previous administration, who was quite keen on testing the political winds with polls and playing off reporters questions. The current administration, while not as media savvy as, say, Ronald Reagan, still does try, even with the blistering attacks by the less-than-obvious liberal print and television media.
By comparison, one vocal, if small 527 group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, has brought in roughly $1 million for their advertisements in certain battleground states. (states in which the political outcome seems to be in the balance, and they have ample electoral votes) These advertisements are to denounce the democratic candidate, due to his actions during his military service, and possibly his actions after he left active duty.
These men, all veterans who served with Kerry, all refute his actions during his four-month stint while serving in Vietnam. Contrary to popular media thought, his first service was for 5 months upon a naval support ship, the USS Gridley. His second stint was on swift boats patrolling the rivers and canals in Vietnam, which lasted for Kerry for four months. This brings his total service time in Vietnam to 9 months. After he left Southeast Asia, he was an admiral's aide in Washington.
What the advertisements bring into question for the first spot is his actions while he was on active duty. The second one, which begins to run tomorrow, are his actions after he left the active service, which included protesting the war, and meeting with representatives of the North Vietnam government. Last time I checked, Kerry as a civilian was in no position to make policy decisions for the US government, especially during wartime.
What the second advertisement also brings to account, is his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee (which included Sen. Fulbright) and the outrageous allegations and accusations brought forth by Kerry (accusations of murder, rape, mutilations, torture, etc.) but didn't mention any direct accounts, except for his own actions. His admission of a war crime (shooting a fleeing, wounded fighter, and the possibility of the person being a child) was never verified by the committee. What was also not brought into testimony was the testimony of John ONeill, who is one of the SBVfT. Kerrys testimony also vilified the fighting men who were still oversees, fighting a war. Kerry's actions also proved to be poisonous for the POW's who were being held by the North Vietnamese army.
These are some of the men who are present in the second advertisement. Their accounts of the actions of their captors, and the use of Kerry's testimony before the Senate proved to be a devastating propaganda by the NVA.
So, in response to these advertisements, and currently unverfied allegations (being tried in the court of public opinion), Kerry has threatened to sue the television stations that run the advertisements. He has also said that on Monday, August 23, he would be filing a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, and the Federal Communications Commission, saying that the SBVfT are connected with the Bush/Cheney reelection campaign, and that is against elections rules. He is demanding that the advertisement end, the campaign donations be returned to the people who donated, and have a fine imposed on the group.
So, what ever happened to Freedom of Speech? Why isn't the democratic candidate refuting these allegations and accusations being leveled by this veterans' group? Wouldn't it be easier for him to release his military records - like the President did - to end these "baseless lies" being brought forth?
I guess if the real records - not the sanitized ones that are currently available - were released, they would be even more damaging than the current accusations. That right there might sink the Kerry campaign like the Titanic sank - in worsening conditions and no one to come to te rescue on their important voyage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.