SwiftVets.com

[Paul]

"He was not proud of his award"

This is very normal. And frankly something that most people can relate to in numerous ways and countless examples. In fact, even the allusion to it in this context in the mention of the young sailors in Goldsmith's excerpt is easily understood.

Senator Kerry is and obviously always has been a very long time a self-serving mercenary. I only point out to take Kerry at his fundamental claim of his less than inspiring record serving as a center piece "example" of his "demonstrated leadership" and qualification to be President and hammer it hard with the more typical examples of better men who mostly just did their job. Even on its own, his claim doesn't stand up.
_________________
Paul

[wolvesbillmn]

Moderator Note:

This forum was designed to facilitate the discussion of the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth strong conviction that John Kerry is unfit to serve as Commander-In-Chief.

If your defense of John Kerry can only be couched in rhetoric denigrating the fitness of another candidate, then we suggest that you find another venue for that expression.

Thank you,

Moderator

[firefly]

WHAT have you been smokin' wolves ? .. LOL

You think that the action is Iraq was NOT necessary ? .....you think the whole worlfd is NOT better off with the Mad-man gone?

Vietnam ??...were you there? I was - and IMO - it was a NOBLE cause. WMD ?...... are you saying that they NEVER existed? Even the LIBS admit they they DID have them.

[mateo70]

Hillarious that Kerry is complaining so hard. This small campaign is KILLING him.
_________________
PFC United States Marine
6th Comm Reserve Unit
Brooklyn, New York

[wolvesbillmn]

[firefly]

Hey MOD....why not let that wacko's posts stand? ..... They show that he is not a clear-thinker !!

[Spiess]

What Bush did was smart, in part becouse he sudely challenged Kerry to denounce George Soros, Micheal Moore, and the rest of those barf bags. Now the way I see it one of two things will happen.
If Kerry Denounces his 527 groups it will take the wind out of their sails, lets face it the average fair minded American voter Really dosnt believe Soros or Micheal Moore, and it will lend to thier credibuility problem.
If Kerry Dosnt Denounce the 527s in his corner then Bush is a fair minded "high Road" politician leaving Kerry looking like a Micheal Moore Fan.

No matter how you look at it , the statment was good, and at the right time. It puts Bush incontroll of the debate that Kerrys supporters spent Millions on and recieved hardly any bump for, Swift vets spend under 400,000.00 on and it is tearing the Kerry corner apart.

Kerry still hasnt signed the 180.
Kerry still hasnt answered the questions posed and he looks like a dog that just took a crap on the livingroom carpet.

Bush, well bush never whined about the lefts attacks he allowed the left enough rope to hang thier leftist necks.

Frankly Im impressed.

[Paul]

What Bush did was smart {Spiess}

Good analysis. You're right.

And even if Kerry does nothing about the Democratic 527s, which is my guess, it's put an emphasis on reporting about 527s and all seen so far shows the number of them on the Democratic side is overwhelming in comparison.

And all of Kerry's whining to call off the SBVT adds comes after his "Bring It On" regarding questions about his 4 months in Vietnam in the first place.

It is a good move by President Bush. The whole thing now including the "too little too late" whines of Edwards and the others shows Kerry and those in his campaign as a bunch of wimps and whiners, whatever he does or doesn't do.

Bottom line, Quarter-tour Kerry started a fight he can't finish.

And they really are whiners.

That whole campaign boggles the mind. A couple months ago it was the Marxist-Leninist feminist atheist that the Kerry campaign hired as it's Religious Outreach Spokesperson, or some such title, (apparently when she worked for the Edwards campaign in the primaries, they dubbed her the "church lady"). When the various religious groups starting merely reporting the details of her resume, the Kerry campaign became immediately defensive and whined about unfair and harsh coverage by the church groups. . . Then the campaign silenced her within like a few days! Pretty useless spokesperson who's not allowed to speak to anyone. . . I haven't followed it since accept to see that it looked like they replaced her with another either atheist or at best agnostic type who apparently recently resigned. . .

And Kerry's wife Theresa . . .

Seriously, I haven't seen such a screwed up bunch since the founding father of these people, George McGovern. They're their own worst enemies.

Which is something to think about in itself. He whines about let's talk about issues. . . . here's some examples of his judgement in hiring campaign staff, initiating issues in public, and how he runs a campaign nevermind a nation. . .

You're right. What President Bush did with this statement was a smart move.
_________________
Paul

[HOV1]

I find it amusing that Senator Kerry insists that President Bush denounce and stop the SwiftVets for Truth ads, when I've never heard the Senator decry or protest the fabricated content of "Fahrenheit 9-11", a film who's baseless allegations and lies have been vetted by even hardcore liberal news organizations. In fact, the Bush Cheney 04 team made a valuable volunteer resign when it became known he was in the last SwiftVets' ad, but Michael Moore wandered the DNC convention floor at will and was treated as a hero by all present. Not the first Democrat double standard to be sure, but a pretty glaring one that no one in the media has brought up yet.
_________________
USN 78-84 STS1(SS) USS George C. Marshall SSBN 654(G)



HOV1

[84rules]

Some simple numbers to make the point:

Anti Bush 527s - 64 million dollars.
SBVFT - $200,000 (or somewhere around there).

Does the Kerry Campaign have 64 million dollars worth of integrity?

Has the Kerry campaign ever raised a single objection to the distortionist rhetoric of MoveOn.org or FictionHype 9/11?

The answer to both of these questions is an emphatic "no."

This whole episode illustrates to major points of truth:

1) The Kerry camp and the DNC are major hypocrits.
2) $200,000 worth of truth will trump 64 million dollars worth of slime.
_________________
Frenchy's News and Commentary Blog
84rules' News and Commentary Blog

[SwanLady]

[Paul]

"Like others noted, Bush DID NOT aim his comments at any one group"

This is true. President Bush spoke in general about ALL 527s and in one statement I saw expressed his belief that they’re bad for the system. Personally, I strongly disagree with the President.

I agreed above that the statement of the President was a smart move on his part, as in a smart tactical move part of a campaign strategy.

However, as mentioned earlier, I believe that it would be foolish for the SBVFT to end their ads. On the same of basis, then one reason, if they did, then I believe it would harm their message irretrievably and undo all that they’ve done by giving the appearance that they were in fact linked to the Bush campaign from the beginning. Should the Swifties end their adds, then my suspicion is that all we'd be hearing from the Kerry camp until November, ad nauseum, is that they had been and that Senator Kerry's whine demanding the President put an end to it was responsible for ending the ads. . . This is only one aspect. From a campaign strategy perspective, then it would obviously be bad for the Bush Campaign also, since at the moment, it’s about the only thing that’s been helping him from what I can see, hence my earlier statements about his record.

More importantly, I don't believe the SBVFT should because I disagree with the President's statement and see his reasons for his position as unsound. Just as I don’t agree with Senator McCain's stance on the issue.

If I did, then it would be at least logical, and reasonable, that I would have to believe that such as the SBVFT adds should not have been allowed in the first place. Which I obviously don't.

Speaking of whiners, then the only thing that I hear from politicians on this are mostly general complaints employing the ambiguous phrase of "negative" ads rather than speaking of ads containing particular lies or falsehoods. While I take no personal pleasure in seeing the feelings of Senator McCain or any other being hurt, then I will point out that such as that by itself is not a sound reason to enact limitations on free speech. What's important is whether or not a man is slandered by lies. And there are means in place of redressing such an injustice if he one is so slandered.

John O’Neill was right in one of the public responses I saw by him, and will only paraphrase: 'if I'm lying, then sue me.'

Personally, and on the more important matter of principle, especially principle placed into legislation thereby setting precedents in our laws, and the pragmatic consequences associated with it all, then I strongly disagree with the President and also with Senator McCain on this matter and don’t want to see any federal bills or government regulation limiting the speech of private groups such as the Swifties. Especially at a time when the business that are the so-called “mainstream media” are further merging into even bigger corporations with smaller numbers of them that are controlling an ever larger proportion of the press and broadcast media.

If nothing else, then the disparity in spending (in contrast to the 200,000 & 400,000 here, I’ve seen up to 800, 000 USD reported on the Swifties, spending which is still orders of magnitude less than the the tens of millions spent by Democratic 527s and such as Michael Moore's movies and the editorializing of much of the mainstream media), then the the reporting on the spending demonstrates that it’s not just big money that dominates in this instance. The SBVT message is successful because Senator Kerry doesn’t have a defense.

I say good for the SBVFT for organizing and going after Senator Kerry’s nonsense.

And so I disagree with President Bush in particular in this instance and I also disagree with Senator McCain's positions on this. The last thing this nation needs at this time is to stifle the speech of independant groups like the SBVFT or enact legislation that would prevent similar organizations from forming in the future.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

Not that I'm personally important at all, but since I do run my mouth, then just to be clear, since the use of the term "Free speech" has become rather ambiguous too:

Personally, I'm not a libertarian or even a libertine.

Rather, I'm against restrictions placed on the political or religious speech of individual American citizens or even organized groups of American citizens like the SBVFT. For some of the reasons given above but primarily because that's precisely what is supposed to be protected by our constitution.

Personally, I believe that it's nonsense and an abuse to claim such as pornography as "freedom of speech."

This is another syllogism that's been turned on it's head and distorted these days. Prostitutes with film contracts labeled "porn stars" and the pseudo-pimps they've signed them with and their blatant commercial enterprises are allowed to operate at will with no thought to enforcement of local anti-obscenity laws, never mind much or increasingly any public encouragement via the "bully pulpit" to do so.

And local anti-obscenity laws allowing a community to ban such as smut have already been upheld as constitutional by our courts time and again. Simultaneously, political and religious speech is increasingly clamped down on or decried against and encouraged to be legislated.

This is what I oppose and why I disagree with the President's broad statement that itself is being attempted to be linked by plenty of others to make particular attacks on the Swifties.

I say good for the SBVFT. Not only for what they're saying but for having organized themselves and making the effort to say it. If they misspeak or they present blatant lies, then they deserve their comeuppance for it. If they don't, then to hell with the whiners. Definitely No to silencing them or any legislation that would do so on the basis of political or religious speech.
_________________
Paul