SwiftVets.com

[Jeffs1234321]

My liberal parents don't seem to believe the Swift Vets at all. That's because they hear the misleading liberal spin that is shown on TV.

[Chuck54]

[RocketFett]

Jeff, try printing or e-mailing them the really compelling articles that are sent from here. Especailly the new news that POWs are starting to come out against kerry because his words were used against them as they were tortured in Vietnam. Send them that Oliver North letter to read. There is so much here that is impossible to just write off and dismiss. If you keep trying and just go over and over with them the facts of what's going on, and the reality that three of kerry's medals have already been proven to be bogus, that right there is a big sticking point that can't be denied by any one that is rational. Also point out the fact of the three story changes. 1: Christmas in Cambodia; lie that has been changed and changed and then retracted. 2: Pulled dove into get rassman now he pulled him out with his wounded arm and supposedly kerry got shrapnel wound from the mine when even the guys on the boat hit by the mine didn't get wounds like that. 3: kerry publically admitted that his first purple heart "may" have been from a self inflicted wound. He's lied and it's been proven so many times it's ridiculous. Point out the quoted article in this forum from former Sec. Nav. Lehman who is on the record now stating that he never saw or signed or authorized the signing of his name with kerry's Silver Star citation. And that SS was already dubious since it had the "V" for Valor on it and NO Silver Star ever awarded to anyone in any branch of service in the medal's history has ever had a "V" with it. Armed with all that, and a rational frame of mind, unless your parents are die hard dyed in the wool democrats who think it's all a Republican conspiracy, that all should get through to them at least some. My wife's mom's parents and grandmother are democrats and to this day contend that the whole lewinsky thing against clinton was just a Republican lie, even though clinton's book admits the affair and the lies by him that followed. That's just nuts.

[Jeffs1234321]

Seems like nothing I say to my parents will convince them that Kerry is not the best vote for president.

[Jeffs1234321]

From MSNBC
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5842595/

[Wolfgang]

It's obvious to me that the media are trying desperately to slam the door shut on this story before it does any more damage to Kerry. It's hard to know how much of this desperation is sincere (i.e., they're actually convinced, possibly even rationally, that Kerry is telling the truth, deespite all the backpedaling [inexplicable on that hypothesis] and sworn affidavits to the contrary), and how much of it is the hunger for a Kerry victory. The two things can go hand in hand, of course--we all have a tendency to see what we want to see, and if you get 14 people in a room to discuss this story, and 13 already back Kerry, it's not hard to see how the ultimate analysis will turn out.

I think that what SBVFT leadership needs to do is come out with a serious of footnoted rebuttals to the various "door slammers" that the media re using.

It's not enough for the facts to get out-- they need to get out in an organized, concise, plainly to the point and highly logically compelling structure that includes each and every oft-repeated pro-Kerry counterargument made today. Probably most particularly, they need to deal with the current rage which is that "all the original documents support John Kerry--case closed"; but they should really deal with everything, partly to refute everything insofar as possible, but also to point out just how much smearing has been going on.

It's also okay, and even laudable in my opinion, to point out gray areas, and it should take the counterevidence and counterarguments seriously. I certainly don't want to argue that SBVFT are infallible; the key issue is what to make of the substance of the complaints about Kerry.

[Wolfgang]

Here's a note I sent to Bloomberg in reponse to their article "Bush Campaign Linked to Swift Boat Ads, Poll Finds (Update1)" at http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aEsO.NWFjSuQ&refer=us. I received a reply back from the reporter on the story that was a bit apologetic, saying he agreed with some points I made and wasn't proud of everything in their article and then requesting that I send a copy of my message to his editor, which I did.

I think the Swifties need to engage this stuff in a conceptually well-organized way, point-by-point and head on, or everyone outside the conservative universe will embrace the new universal MSM consensus whether there's any substance to that consensus or not.

===============================================

Hello.

Aside from spin (has there been a more preposterous headline this year? Since when are such linkages determined by polls?), your story contains some very partisan and false assertions about the SBVFT, all variations on the theme that their allegations are unsubstantiated.

Their allegations have substantially more backing than do Kerry's, particularly once one realizes that the reliability of certain of the official records, namely those that (as Kerry himself admitted before this controversy erupted, back in 1971) Kerry may have written or sourced, is one of the issues under contention. (Plainly non-Kerry-sourced records support SBVFT as a general rule.)

Kerry (through his official surrogates) has already withdrawn several long-time and politically substantial assertions (Christmas in Cambodia, self-infliction of first purple heart [now "possible"; numerous sworn affidavits affirm it's actuality], that Kerry returned to the seen to rescue the abandoned PCF3 [in fact, none of the other boats fled the scene]), and if the weight of evidence is any guide, more retractions (or simple discrediting) will be forthcoming.

Also, neither Kerry nor the media have responded to this manner in a way that a truthful agent would. Kerry's and the DNC's attorneys and/or their media cohorts have expressed numerous demonstrably false allegations against the SBVFT:

(1) They didn't serve with John Kerry
(2) They're all Republicans (or ever Republican activists, in some even more dishonest accounts)
(3) The doctor who treated John Kerry was a phony
(4) The radio and televisions stations airing the ads are subject to libel litigation
(5) John O'Neill is a Republican
(6) John O'Neill has given more money to Republicans than Democrats
(7) Most relevant eyewitnesses support Kerry's position (not even close, BTW)
( There's no reason to think Kerry wrote or sourced the relatively few (but nearly exclusively reported) reports that support his positions
(9) Kerry has released all the relevant records
(10)SBVFT has been funded primarily by a handful of Republican activists
(10.1) The nearly-explicit implication of course being that, unlike the left 527's which received until recently two orders of magnitude more money, the SBVFT were mere partisan hacks.

And so forth--if I wanted to waste more time on this e-mail, I think I could right off the top of my head come up with 10 or 20 more demonstrably false allegations (e.g., stories about the SBVFT member [Elliot, I believe?] who "retracted his claims", rather than offered, as he swore under oath and has repeated since, a non-material qualification to his affidavit).


It's understandable, if appalling, that Kerry would feel free to smear and lie about his political opponents. It's what Bill Clinton did (remember the post-election media hand-wringing?), and some of the same team has reassembled here. (Witness the 10-year-old allegations of adultery against Al French resurfacing, e.g..)

What should be most frightening for you is that you and most of the rest of the media are joining Kerry in his fraudulent and transparently dishonest campaign (this dishonesty irrespective of any mistakes or even deliberate falsehoods SBVFT have in their claims--none of either being demonstrated so far, as far as I know). Witness your headline and the "substance" of your article--completely neglecting the very potent, potentially devastating, countervailing arguments against your Kerry talking points, and thoroughly distorting the mixed results of the Washington Post article.

You are spending your moral capital at a furious pace; based on this article, you're already over your head in debt.

At some point, you're going to need to decide which is more important to you: a _serious_ analysis of the truth, or John Kerry's victory in November. Until then, you can either get serious about examining both sides of this issue, or you can continue speaking Power to Truth until your power is negligible.

[Maggie1]

After folowing the link to the Bloomberg article I posted the following message to Bloomberg:

Dear Michael,
I started reading your article and then realized that it only regurgitates the same liberal biased statements that are so common in the media. If you really want to know the truth, you have to look at more than the surface documents. You can't just read the documents, you also have to be able to understand them. This ability is extremely lacking in the today's media.
You might look at John Kerry's claim of volunteering for the Navy or for that matter Vietnam. John Kerry joined the Naval Reserves, Inactive after he was refused a deferment to spend a year in Paris. His unit was called to active duty. He did volunteer for the Swift Boats only because he thought that would be a way to get an taste of what Vietnam was like. At the time they were doing coastal patrol. It was only after that the mission was changed and became an active force patrolling the rivers and canals of the Mekong Delta.
The question is whether the media will continue as an important part of the American stage. The advent of the internet and talk radio provides an opportunity, for those who want to make informed choices, to find the information on their own. You can be on the cutting edge of change or become obsolete. The media also has a choice.
On additional item, are you aware that except for a few large donations, over 2,000,000 has been raised since the first ad from individuals contributing less than $100? I'm sure the SwiftVets would provide you with more up to date figures.
Respectfully,

More and more I realize that this is about more than the SwiftVets. By helping to bring out their message MSM should also be called to task for the totally biased way issues are covered!
_________________
Proud Wife of a Vietnam Vet

[Jeffs1234321]

The big problem is that there is so much evidence against Kerry yet when trying to discuss it with a stranger, you have so little time.