SwiftVets.com

[StaunchIndependent]

Thus far the Swift Vets haven't managed to get any mainstream media coverage for their anti-Kerry campaign. The group needs to adopt some basic media techniques to get their message across.

- You must downplay your group's status as a legal "527" political entity. As the group is portraying itself as a simple gathering of war veterans seeking the truth, the financial status as a political organization can bring conflict-of-interest questions.

- For the same reason, I would supress or divert attention to the group's financiers, including Spaeth and Franke. Alternative media have highlighted their backgrounds in GOP campaigns, donations to the Bush campaign and involvement in the smear attacks on McCain and Clinton. The media loves to expose hooks like this as it plays to the public's growing distrust of image politics and special interest money.

- A credibility issue will inevitably arise for any group pushing the message that a "decorated volunteer" in the Vietnam war is unfit for military service, especially in the current climate and recent press coverage of Bush and the Iraq situation. Bush and Rumsfeld's initiation and management of the war are now perceived by a strong majority as the most disastrous and ill-conceived military action since Vietnam. To reinforce the non-partisan image, the group should address this issue and include some token criticism of Bush and/or Rumsfeld. This will lend some credibility and get more mileage out of the attacks on Kerry.

Good luck!

[sparky]

Shhhhhh, stop giving these Bush lackeys advice!

[Montana]

(partial quote)...
¨A credibility issue will inevitably arise for any
group pushing the message that a "decorated
volunteer" in the Vietnam war is unfit for military service...¨

StaunchIndependent:
Believe you meant unfit to be Commander-in-Chief.

Another guy was an American ¨decorated
volunteer¨ and rose through the ranks. He charged the enemy
on his horse, and some say the victory that day brought
France into the war. This same ¨decorated volunteer¨ later
became a hero for the other side (a hero for both sides
in the same war). Of course his name was
Brigadier General Benedict Arnold.
In the end, Arnold was condemned and shunned by
England, Canada and the United States. He died
an unknown.
And of course, Arnold... like Kerry, was not fit to become
Commander-in-Chief.

No one in this group needs to make ¨token criticism¨ toward
anyone else. Kerry´s...(just like Arnold´s) actions speak volumns.
After the Vietnam War, Kerry became a ¨useful idiot¨ for
the enemy. Ask General Giap of the North Vietnamese Army.

Montana

[StaunchIndependent]

[95 bxl]

Kerry is, of course, a self-confessed war criminal. That's all it will take, in the end.

[sparky]

Careful, sometimes smears, innuendo, groundless accusations and whisper campaigns backfire.

Nobody who wasn't already going to vote for Bush is going to hear "war criminal" and not see it for the absolute ******** that it is.

[Montana]

[quote="StaunchIndependent
Ad hominem attacks are less credible with the public than they used to be.

My comments were not ad hominem attacks. It is a known
fact that the Vietnam Veterans against the War, which Kerry
co-founded, marched in our capital with the enemy´s flag. Kerry
met with the enemy in Paris(Viet Cong), Kerry endorsed the enemy´s peace plan which our government opposed, Kerry´s anti-war group provided aid and comfort to the enemy (see General Giap´s memoirs), Kerry´s book¨The New Soldier,¨ was used by the enemy to interrogate and shame our POW´s, Kerry and his book mocked our Flag
and the US Marine Corps War Memorial, Kerry´s group talked
about assassinating US Senators (Kerry may or may not have been there but he knew about the discussion and did not report it),and the list goes on.

Benedict Arnold was a hero for both sides in the same war. Kerry was
different. He was a medal-chasing maverick in Vietnam whose fellow officers wanted him to leave. When he
returned Stateside, Kerry became the enemy´s ¨useful idiot,¨ and
slandered thousands of veterans of the Vietnam War, who served
honorably.

Arnold, today, is known as a traitor. History is still being written
when it comes to Kerry. However, most ,who are informed
about John Kerry´s activities, see little difference in the two names.


Montana

[Romani ite domum]

Montana

[Montana]

[Marine's Wife]

http://www.powmiafamiliesagainstjohnkerry.com

http://www.nojohnkerry.org

http://www.POWForum.org

http://www.google.comOilforFood

[Romani ite domum]

Montana

I prefer the original sources. Both of the items you refer to from the link I gave you are second hand references. When and if I can find the original source, then I will address what the original sources say. So far, I haven't been particularly successful, and perhaps they aren't on the internet, but rather only in printed form.

The reason I selected that link is that Greg Lewis seems to be the source of the original story, and he originally attributed it to something Oliver North had said. As I said, I prefer original sources. Things seem to get changed when they are passed along and re-told.

[Montana]

[Greenhat]

[DaveO2]

"General Giap's memoirs are readily available in Vietnam. Do you read Vietnamese? If so, pick a copy up and read it. General Giap does clearly state that the North was prepared to surrender following Tet '68 and it was only the clear impact of the protesters and the coverage of the American media of Tet as an American defeat that kept them in the war."
............................................................
So, the general's memoirs are only available in Vietnamese? And only in Vietnam?

It's interesting that the only direct access to a disputed quote is so difficult.

I'm intrigued when someone defends a reference by saying, "just learn Vietnamese, go to Vietnam, and read it yourself."

[Romani ite domum]

Greenhat