Posted on 09/22/2004 10:03:16 AM PDT by kingattax
I think that many people who have seen the sixth ad being put out by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth will agree with me when say that the ad, entitled "Friends" had the potential to do as much damage to the Kerry campaign as the entire Rathergate/Danron fiasco. Don't believe me? Watch the ad yourself. And, in case you can't see it, here's a transcript.
The beauty of this ad is that it is simple, verifiably true, and utterly devastating. We know that John Kerry met with the Vietnamese Communists because he admitted it to us. We know that, as American boys fought and died in the muck of Vietnam, John Kerry sat with their perfumed diplomats in Europe and conspired to hand victory in the war to the Communists. We know this to be true. We know it because John Kerry told it to us.
Let me quote him exactly, because it's important to get this right. Kerry said, "I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government." His words, ladies and gentlemen. While the United States was at war, John Kerry went to Paris and spoke with the enemies of the Republic.
People say that what happened thirty-plus years ago doesn't matter, shouldn't matter in this campaign. Perhaps, in most cases, that should be true. But in this case it certainly does matter. Does any sane person really believe that whether or not George W. Bush showed up for a week's worth of drills in Alabama thirty-three years ago is somehow more consequential than the admitted fact that Senator Kerry, as a nearly thirty year-old politician, travelled to a foreign nation to meet with the enemies of this country while the nation was at war and then returned in order to advocate that the United States accept peace on the terms of the communist Vietnamese (or, in other words, surrender)?
If this gets out (and since the Swift Vets are reportedly set to spend $2 million running this ad, it will) how does the Kerry campaign respond to it in a credible fashion? In essence, they're left with a handful of options, all of them bad.
They can ignore the accusations altogether, but I don't think they'll try that one again, seeing as it worked so well with the first Swift Vet assault.
Attempting to deflect attention by attacking Bush on his National Guard service is out now since, thanks to CBS (and probably the DNC too), pretty much anything to do with Bush's guard service is going to be radioactive for the rest of the campaign.
Perhaps they can trot Senator Kerry out to, in the mother of all flip-flops, apologize for some of his anti-war activism.
Alternately, they can act outraged that anyone would, "question Senator Kerry's patriotism." This, in all probability, is the course that they'll take in the coming days.
And they'll be right: it is an attack on Senator Kerry's patriotism. But, much more importantly than that, it is an accurate attack on his patriotism. Worse still (for Kerry's dwindling legions) is that it feeds into perceptions of how Senator Kerry would behave as President.
The most obvious point that must be taken from his claims as to Vietnamese intentions at the time is that either Kerry is a liar or he is an extremely gullible man (or perhaps both). Also in his Senate testimony in 1971, John Kerry told the American people that, at the most, the lives of perhaps two thousand to three thousand South Vietnamese would be at risk if the United States withdrew from Vietnam. As we would later see, the numbers would be substantially higher.
This, of course, was not a surprise to anyone with a lick of common sense. He entire world had already seen the crimes of communism in Russia, in Eastern Europe, in China and, indeed, in North Vietnam. Only a very easily deceived person could have believed that the pattern would not repeat the moment the Vietnamese Communists gripped the South within their claws.
Even worse, this wasn't the only time that Senator Kerry allowed himself to be deceived by foreign enemies of the United States, nor was it the only time that Kerry was used to deliver the demands of an enemy of the United States to the American government and people.
In 1985, the newly-elected Senator Kerry took a trip to Nicaragua, where he met with the communist dictator of that country. When he returned to the United States from that trip, the Senator had brought something with him: the Sandinistas' offer for peace with the United States. Once more John Forbes Kerry voluntarily conveyed the demands of a hostile foreign power to his own government. Yet again John Kerry called upon the President of the United States to accept, in whole, the terms offered by an enemy of the Republic.
Once the American people know this history, once they've taken it all in, they'll be left with the same frightful question that I've carried with me for nine months: what happens if the person receiving that offer is no longer Lieutenant Kerry or Senator Kerry, but President Kerry? What happens if there's no one higher on up for Kerry to call upon to accept the enemy's terms: what if Kerry himself is in a position to accept the enemy's terms?
This is significant because the John Kerry of 2004 shows every sign of being every bit as gullible as the John Kerry of 1985 and the John Kerry of 1971. He's claimed that foreign leaders are eager to see him become President. I'll bet they are.
All of this takes on even greater importance since Kerry proposes to, as President, base his entire foreign policy upon seeking negotiated solutions to the world's problems and since Senator Kerry apparently believes that "negotiating" means "accepting uncritically whatever those sophisticated foreigners tell me" this means that a President Kerry would almost certainly have a foreign policy revolving around the calculated sale of America's national interest.
Kerry pretends to talk tough on North Korea, but then he says things like, "We must be prepared to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that addresses the full range ofÇF? North Korea's concerns about security and economic development." It doesn't take a genius to figure out what Senator Kerry really means. When he accuses the Bush Administration of "not paying enough attention" to North Korea he really means, "Being insufficiently slavish in appeasing Kim Jong Il."
The same is true on Iran. Senator Kerry talks about getting tough, and yet his core proposal for dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions involves giving nuclear fuel to the Ayatollahs. No, I didn't make that up. Here's Senator Kerry himself, "We should call their bluff, and organize a group of states that will offer the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they can't divert it to build a weapon." He's so trusting (or stupid) that he's almost cute.
But, in truth, there's nothing cute about the fact that virtually every time that Senator Kerry has dealt with an enemy of the United States (or offered a proposal for dealing with an enemy) in the field of diplomacy, his response has been to become an advocate of proposals favourable to that enemy.
In 1971, John Kerry wanted the US to unilaterally begin withdrawing from Vietnam and trust the North Vietnamese Communists to return US POW's of their own volition.
In 2004, John Kerry wants to give "nuclear fuel" to Iran and trust that they won't do anything bad with it, won't divert any portion of it, and will give it all back just as they're supposed to.
John Kerry may trust the enemies of America but the American people just can't trust John Kerry.
PING
Watch the ad at:
http://www.swiftvets.com
Nice article, thanks... will be forwarding.
In 2004, John Kerry wants to give "nuclear fuel" to Iran and trust that they won't do anything bad with it, won't divert any portion of it, and will give it all back just as they're supposed to.
John Kerry may trust the enemies of America but the American people just can't trust John Kerry.
John Kerry is a dangerous, egomaniacal idiot whose sense of self is so huge that he believes he should be President simply by virtue of being John Kerry. I am really looking forward to his concession speech and the whining of the Dems on how they once again failed to get their message out.
And let's not forget that he was an officer in the United States Navy Reserve at the time which, I submit, is why his discharge papers were dated years after he was to have been discharged.
Deadly.
Bump for later read ...
That said, I don't think there is any more to gain from Kerry's Vietnam or post-Vietnam shenanigans. I think that the public has crystallized on this: the Swifties hammered him, and drove his negatives up to the mid-40s. That's no small feat. However, I think we have gained all we will get from this line of attack.
Can't prove it, but I bet if you did some polling or focus group stuff, you'd find out that I'm right. The next connection needs to be from Kerry's Vietnam and post-Vietnam service to the WAR ON TERROR. Yes, the ad does have a good last line, but it is NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO THE WAR ON TERROR. Right now, the only "movement" appears to be with the "security moms." Bush has them, but they need to be solidified. The Swifties could do this with direct ties from Kerry's anti-Americanism to 9/11. Only they have the cajones to do this. Will they?
LOL! Rhetorical question???
I am really looking forward to his concession speech and the whining of the Dems on how they once again failed to get their message out. or he will just call them all scumbags and tell them to shove it!
WOWOWOW this is a GREAT article .. I had to take some time and email the author!!....
Fear of telling it like it is? = TREASON
The question of his going to Paris is not as effectively damning as an anti-Kerry ad, in my opinion, as is the question of his criminalizing fellow soldiers for war atrocities. I like that one better.
Lenin said that capitalists would sell the very rope they would be hung by.
Kerry said he would sell to terrorists the very fuel that would incinerate our cities!
My tagline says it all!
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Add one more: He is so politically motivated he will say and do whatever is in vogue at the time to win support and advance his agenda.
In other words, he's an invertebrate.
Not only that, I believe his estimate was VERY low.
Does anyone have the rough figures for those who did die in South Vietnam after Saigon fell? Oh, and don't forget to add the 2,000,000 who died in Cambodia.
Problem is that no one will see it, except a few. Talk radio will run with it, and a little on Fox. But the rest of the MSM won't give it squat air time or coverage. They have decided that the Swiftvets don't exist.
Kerry said if the Iranians didn't give back the spent fuel rods, at that point we'd know they weren't our friends. He's delusional.
I will never understand how anyone with a lick of common sense could support a guy like Kerry, Honest!
This guy has more baggage than all the redcaps at O'Hare put together.
A proven liar, fraud, phony, traitor and a very unlikeable
sort he sputters nonsense that even his interviewers don't understand.
I really loathe this dispicable person.
Keep up the good work!
bmp
hanoi john flip flop sKerry never met a commie dictator he didn't hug or a tax HIKE he didn't vote for.
Great article. Also gave me my new tagline.
Dishonorable discharged....is the real truth on skerry...thanks to carter and clintoon this was expunged. However his military records tell and different story.
According to Fox news last night, Mary Jane Cahill, lately Kerry's campaign head, now demoted because of Lockhart and Carville, Begala, and Sasso...has set up a fund for the necessary Presidential election recount...so they won't get caught short like they were last time. Sick. Will not get Kerry shoehorned into the WH, no matter what they do. Landslide.
Actually more people will see this Swift ad than any of the previous. The first ads were very small buys that relied on controversy to get media atention. They got the media attention and with it millions of dollars in donations. Those millions of dollars are now translating into serious ad buys in battleground states.
Bump for later...
The author of this article does a great job putting Kerry's meeting(s) with the Vietnamese Communists in context with his later actions -- showing exactly how and why it's so relevant today.
How do you know about the DD? His DD 214 says honorable
"I don't think there is any more to gain from Kerry's Vietnam or post-Vietnam shenanigans."
It strengthens the bulwark against his gaining any credibility in his intensified attacks on GW.
It is conceivable a certain proportion of the electorate may be influenced by K's criticisms of GW and the condcut of the war; but this will stamp out temptations to translate doubt into a change in vote.
Plus, it keeps the focus on Kerry, not Bush, which is a generically useful strategy. Kerry won't be able to resist responding to this ad.
Excellent post. Go Swifties!!!
If this gets out (and since the Swift Vets are reportedly set to spend $2 million running this ad, it will) how does the Kerry campaign respond to it in a credible fashion?
The Kerry campaign and their shills in the mainstream media will do what they're doing now. They'll stick their collective heads in the sand and accuse the truth tellers of being mean spirited.
If this gets out (and since the Swift Vets are reportedly set to spend $2 million running this ad, it will) how does the Kerry campaign respond to it in a credible fashion?
The Kerry campaign and their shills in the mainstream media will do what they're doing now. They'll stick their collective heads in the sand and accuse the truth tellers of being mean spirited.
Compare this documented perfidy to candidate Kerry's remarks a couple of months ago, when he said he had been in touch with foreign leaders and they had confided that they preferred Kerry for President.
I disagree. I think they went overboard with the "betrayed his nation" part at the end. We may believe that but we are already voting for Bush. Its a lot harder to get a leaning Democrat or independent to buy it. They could have made the same point without overtly making that statement and potentially alientating voters. Betrayal is a strong word and since the guy has never even been indicated for it, much less convicted, its over the top.
One small problem with that. No one indicted him on those charges 30 years ago so its totally irrelevant. A conviction is necessary for this ammendment to be relevant.
Post a source.
Tonkin...educate this Freeper...on skerry's real discharge from the US Navy...you're much better at it than me. ;o)
PatriotCJC...you can start on this thread there's probably much more about this discharge....HERE..CLICK ME
Tonkin this fella needs to be educated also on kerry's discharge from the Navy, Thanks.
See my post #44....you can start there....
"shall have engaged in"
I don't see where he would have to be indicted.
Aid and comfort to the enemy: The Kerry record... Mark Alexander (Mark Alexander is Executive Editor and Publisher of The Federalist, a Townhall.com member group. )
February 26, 2004, Kerry’s Soviet Rhetoric The Vietnam-era antiwar movement got its spin from the Kremlin. By Ion Mihai Pacepa ( Ion Mihai Pacepa was acting chief of Romania's espionage service and national-security adviser to the country's president. He is the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc. )
John Kerry vs. The 14th Amendment Raymond S. Kraft Monday, Sept. 13, 2004
I've seen the posts and threads, but where is the evidence? Please help. I've seen his DD214 on the web and it is contemporary with the time period. This DD-214 was for his relief from active duty. Is this doc a fraud???
Kerry's greatest achievements in his stellar Senate career were
Stopping the funding for the Nicaraguan Contras after bring back a peace agreement with Daniel Ortega of the Sandanistas (which was worthless). Ortega turned around and solicited $200 million from the Soviets a few days later. Read: Kerry's Disloyal Nicaraguan Journey and Don't forget 'The John Kerry Committee'Investigating (or creating) the Iran/Contra and BCCI scandals.
Blocking the vote on the Vietnam Human Rights Act in the Senate in 2001, which tied U.S. aid to Vietnam's human rights performance, and had passed by a 410-1 margin in the House of Representatives. Kerry, chairman of the Senate's East Asian and Pacific Affairs subcommittee, said in a statement at the time that he and fellow Vietnam War veteran Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) "are concerned that denying aid to Vietnam would actually slow human rights improvements." Many Vietnamese living abroad, along with human rights campaigners, say conditions in Vietnam have deteriorated in the three years since Kerry blocked the legislation.
Persuading the MIA/POW Senate committee to vote unanimously that no POWs existed in Vietnam in order to open up trade with Vietnam (his cousin C. Stewart Forbes, CEO of Colliers Intl, received a contract for a huge commercial deal worth at least $905 million to develop a deep-sea commercial port at Vung Tau).
For more on the POW/MIA issue, here is a great article: When John Kerry's Courage Went M.I.A. - Senator covered up evidence of P.O.W.'s left behind
For more, check out the John F. Kerry Timeline. Email it to your friends, post on your blogs.
.
Even though this happenned 30 years ago, it does matters. Because it tells you the character, the fabric of the man. Remember the man went to Nicaragua with his liberal buddy Sen Harkins to meet with Communist Ortega while America support the Contras?
I don't have the answer...have you seen Tonkin's info? He's the one following this intently. I think we're looking at a 10-15-04 date on that evidence.
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.