The Swift Boat Ad--A Rebuttal (Doc Farmer Rebuts Susan Estrich)

        The latest piece of ugliness in this year's presidential race is an ad attacking John Kerry's record as a swift boat captain in the Vietnam War.

        If the add reflects the truth, Ms. Estrich, then then ugliness is the fact that your vaunted lib/dem/soc/commie candidate is a liar. It seems to be the habit of your side of the political aisle...

       In what is shaping up to be the ugliest, slimiest, dirtiest year in presidential history, this one takes the cake--so far.

        Ah, so the MoveOn.org ad finalist comparing Dubya to Hitler is apparently less ugly than the truth about Kerry, eh?

       The ad is an attack not only on Kerry, but also on the military itself--an attack on the process by which the military awards honors and on the men who vouched for Kerry when he was awarded his.

       Wrong. Kerry's lies are what have dishonoured the military, madam. He diminished the awards of all others who received them for valid, justified means. That's not the fault of the ad, nor of the Swift Boat Vets. It's Kerry's fault.

       It is known as the ''Swift Boat Ad.'' If you haven't seen it, you will certainly hear about it. It features men who claim that they served with Kerry, and who argue that he wasn't really the war hero that his shipmates and the Navy say he was.

       The ''claim,'' as you put it, is the truth. They served with Kerry. They may not have all served on the same boat, but a Swift Boat can only handle about six or seven people. There are 12 in the ad. Do the math...

       Some of the men in the ad have been Kerry enemies for years. Most have developed new memories of events that are 30 years old since Kerry emerged as the Democratic nominee.

      Sorry, is somebody who disagrees with Kerry automatically viewed as an ''enemy" or is this just more hyperbole to discredit the honorable in order to protect the dishonorable? As to the "new memories" there is nothing new about them. Kerry never ran for president before. Perhaps, Ms. Estrich, you should check out the difference between a senator and a president. One is not responsible for U.S. troops, and the other one is. That said, if you knew somebody couldn't handle that responsibility, wouldn't you pipe up and say so? Or would you only do that if he were a political ''enemy''?

       The White House, defending an incumbent who is still trying to support claims that he fulfilled his military service with dental records from Alabama from the summer of 1972, has contended that it has nothing to do with the ad, but it has refused to demand that its supporters, who financed it, take it off the air.

       Ah, you're raising that old canard again, eh? Dubya didn't fulfill his service? What a load of male bovine excrement. It has been proved--PROVED--that he did. The documentation is released and available. Now, unless you've got proof positive that Dubya evaded service, aided and comforted the enemy, illegally negotiated with communists in Paris, or other accusations (and by the way, Kerry did all those things!) then kindly shut your pie-hole.

    Consider:

        This year, because of changes in the law, and the proliferation of independent groups, the presidential candidates have less control than ever over what goes over the airwaves in support of their candidacies. Even so, it is difficult to believe that Bush's friend Perry would ignore a call from the White House requesting him to stop supporting a group that is embarrassing the president.

      On one point we agree--the change in the campaign finance law is an idiotic mess, made worse by the gross violation of the First Amendment and the unbelievable decision of the Supreme Court that this unconstitutional law was, somehow, constitutional.

      As to Dubya's ''friend'' I would assume that he is not a puppet, to be directed by the president at his slightest whim. Besides, you lib/dem/soc/commies are always saying that Dubya's the real puppet. Make up your minds!

       Last year, Republicans were quick to pounce on Moveon.org, an independent Democratic group, when a public contest included on ad that compared Bush to Hitler. The Republicans were right to be outraged--Democrats denounced the ad, and MoveOn removed it. In the end, it is not unfair to judge a candidate by the company he keeps.

       Except that's exactly what you're saying here. Judge Kerry by the nine who are going on stage with him (probably paid or at least wined and dined by Kerry) but not the 250 or so who have joined the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign. Judge Dubya by his friendship with Mr. Perry, but don't judge Kerry by his relationship with Mr. Soros.   Rep/cons were right to denounce the Hitler ad because it was based upon lies. The only reason you're honked off about the Swift Boats Ad, madam, is because it is based upon the truth.

        The White House has said it does not believe that this election should be run on the issue of John Kerry's Vietnam War record. If it is, George Bush can only lose. He wasn't a hero--like Bill Clinton and Dick Cheney, he did everything he could to avoid service in a dangerous war. He did not save anyone's life but his own.

       The White House will not bring up Kerry's war record. However, Kerry is the one running of four bogus months in country. He got three band-aid boo-boos and rode out of Vietnam on that technicality. He came back and claimed to the Senate, under oath, that war crimes occurred in Vietnam, which makes him either 1) a war criminal or 2) a perjurer. We've already had a perjurer in the White House, thank you so very much, and we don't want another one in there. George Bush wasn't a war hero. But that's not a prerequisite for the presidency. What is required is leadership, honor, decency, and strength.

       Kerry has none of those attributes, madam. That's probably why you want him in the Oval Office.

        America deserves better than that.

Note. Susan Estrich's original article can be found at http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/8/9/90459.shtml

About the Writer: Doc Farmer is a writer and humorist who is also a moderator on ChronWatch's Forum. He formerly lived in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but now resides in Indiana. Doc receives e-mail at docfarmer9999@yahoo.co.uk.

added the blue (hope it works):

        The latest piece of ugliness in this year's presidential race is an ad attacking John Kerry's record as a swift boat captain in the Vietnam War.

        If the add reflects the truth, Ms. Estrich, then then ugliness is the fact that your vaunted lib/dem/soc/commie candidate is a liar. It seems to be the habit of your side of the political aisle...

       In what is shaping up to be the ugliest, slimiest, dirtiest year in presidential history, this one takes the cake--so far.

        Ah, so the MoveOn.org ad finalist comparing Dubya to Hitler is apparently less ugly than the truth about Kerry, eh?

       The ad is an attack not only on Kerry, but also on the military itself--an attack on the process by which the military awards honors and on the men who vouched for Kerry when he was awarded his.

       ;Wrong. Kerry's lies are what have dishonoured the military, madam. He diminished the awards of all others who received them for valid, justified means. That's not the fault of the ad, nor of the Swift Boat Vets. It's Kerry's fault.

       It is known as the ''Swift Boat Ad.'' If you haven't seen it, you will certainly hear about it. It features men who claim that they served with Kerry, and who argue that he wasn't really the war hero that his shipmates and the Navy say he was.

       The ''claim,'' as you put it, is the truth. They served with Kerry. They may not have all served on the same boat, but a Swift Boat can only handle about six or seven people. There are 12 in the ad. Do the math...

       Some of the men in the ad have been Kerry enemies for years. Most have developed new memories of events that are 30 years old since Kerry emerged as the Democratic nominee.

      Sorry, is somebody who disagrees with Kerry automatically viewed as an ''enemy" or is this just more hyperbole to discredit the honorable in order to protect the dishonorable? As to the "new memories" there is nothing new about them. Kerry never ran for president before. Perhaps, Ms. Estrich, you should check out the difference between a senator and a president. One is not responsible for U.S. troops, and the other one is. That said, if you knew somebody couldn't handle that responsibility, wouldn't you pipe up and say so? Or would you only do that if he were a political ''enemy''?

       The White House, defending an incumbent who is still trying to support claims that he fulfilled his military service with dental records from Alabama from the summer of 1972, has contended that it has nothing to do with the ad, but it has refused to demand that its supporters, who financed it, take it off the air.

       Ah, you're raising that old canard again, eh? Dubya didn't fulfill his service? What a load of male bovine excrement. It has been proved--PROVED--that he did. The documentation is released and available. Now, unless you've got proof positive that Dubya evaded service, aided and comforted the enemy, illegally negotiated with communists in Paris, or other accusations (and by the way, Kerry did all those things!) then kindly shut your pie-hole.

    Consider:

None of the men who are behind the ad were actually on a swift boat with Kerry. Of the 10 still living who did, nine are supporting Kerry.

No, none of those men served on Kerry's Swift Boat with Kerry. There was never a claim that they did serve on the same Swift Boat. However, they ALL served with Kerry. As to the nine surviving Swift Boat sailors, I wonder how many of them have been paid to support Kerry. Does that sound crass? Well, no more so than the vile claims you've been making, madam.
The closest any of the men in the ad came to Kerry and his men was about half a football field away.

This ain't a regatta these guys were serving in. You've just told a lie. They served a lot closer to Kerry than that, and you know it.
The biggest financial backer of the group is a man named Bob Perry, a major supporter of President Bush and the Republican Party, who gave $100,00 to the group, which accounts for two-thirds of its receipts to date.

So? You don't seem to have any problems with George Soros's millions for attack ads fromr 527 committees. Mr. Perry, if your information is correct, has contributed about 1% of Soros' bankroll for the lib/dem/soc/commies. But that's okay, right?
A study in 2002 by Texans for Public Justice ranked Perry No. 2 among Republican donors in that year's Texas elections.

Again, so what? That does not diminish the truth of the statements--or the fact that all the men filed affidavits. Now, swearing to the truth of something might not mean something to many lib/dem/soc/commies (especially some of them in high elected office), but I assure you it means a HELL of a lot to decorated war heros - REAL ones.
The press for the group is being handled by the very same people who set out to discredit Sen. John McCain in 2000 when McCain, a former prisoner of war, challenged President Bush for the nomination for president. McCain, who is supporting Bush for the presidency, has denounced the ad.

You're reduced to attacking the messenger. Perhaps because you don't have any honest ability to attack the veracity of the message itself. As to McCain, he has the right to denounce the ad if he so wishes. It doesn't mean he's correct. Same goes for you.
The doctor in the ad who claims that John Kerry was lying about his injuries was not the doctor who signed John Kerry's sick call sheet and was not a Kerry crew mate.

Sick call forms are not always signed by the doctor. The doctor sees the patient and the yeoman or nurse signs the form for the files. You're just using courtroom tactics to try and discredit the truth. How sad for you.

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.