SwiftVets.com

[producehawk]

How about having the admiral who was on the boston whaler when Kerry wounded himself, give his quick account. Then fade to Dr. Letson as he is explaining treating Kerry, but letting his corpman do the paperwork. Last have Hibard say he turned him down for a Purple Heart because it was a scratch. Then have a voice over say "sign you form 180 Kerry, What are you hiding". Or an add quickly attacking each of the lefts talking points would be effective.

[Tom Poole]

Mona, you're probably right on this one and I concede the point. I wrote that in a snit after seeing Kerry's picture with them. However, the root of his current coverup is wrapped around those who support him. I'd still like to see that information in another medium.
_________________
'58 Airedale HMR(L)-261 VMO-2

[Mona]

[integritycounts]

It is my strong view that anything that the Swift Vets need to do should be done with VETERANS, saying what they think or saw.

The first ad has done so very well because of that, and without it, the media would have torn it up.

If you have a Veteran say, "I was John Kerry's commander, and he was never ordered to Cambodia for any reason" That would be good.

Vets that did not see hostile gun fire would be very good.

The Veteran who declined his purple heart describing that, would be good.

The Swift-Vets need to continue to say what they saw, with their eyes. That is the key to the first ad, and any others

[raincross]

Sorry I posted this in another topic before I saw this one, but here it is:

I read that the Swift Vets are producing a new ad. I want to give them a little advice. Given the press coverage that the first Swift Ad has gotten, any new ad that talks about his medals isn't going to lead to any conclusive proof that Kerry is lying. It will just be people shouting back and forth at each other with one side saying the people on Kerry's boat support him and another side saying most of his chain of command is against him.
So, as they say in public relations and marketing, the Swifties need to focus their message. They need to simplfy it and play to their strongest point.
Of all the allegations brought forth by the swift vets, the only one that can be proven completely true is the "Christmas in Cambodia" story.
Why? Because the story doesn't even need any backing up from the Swift Vets themselves. They can just use Kerry's own words and compare it to what Douglas Brinkley has said "he was 50 miles away" and what his campaign has now said "he was near Cambodia."
Because of the way the media and Democratic Party attack machine has handled this the Swift Vets themselves don't have a ton of credibility. To many they are seen as a shadowy, right-wing funded group of people who never served on Kerry's boat. We know this isn't true, but that is the message the DNC has been effective at getting out.
But the Swift Vets can give themselves a HUGE boost of credibility if they play their cards right.
The Kerry campaign and Brinkley has said that Kerry was in Cambodia it just wasn't on Christmas. Let's leave the part about him possibly (very unlikey) being in Cambodia in Jan. or Feb. out for right now. Remember: focus the message, keep it simple.

Now image this ad.
It opens with two quotes from John Kerry:
"Mr. President, I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in
Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared -— seared -— in me, that says to me, before we send another generation into harm's way we have a responsibility in the U.S. Senate to go the last step, to make the best effort possible in order to avoid that kind of conflict." [see Congressional Record - Senate of March 27, 1986, page 3594]

And then this one:
"I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon [sic] claimed there were no American troops was very real." -- interview with the Boston Herald, 1979.

Then cut to the quote from Kerry biographer Douglas Brinkley:
"On Christmas Eve he was near Cambodia; he was around 50 miles from the Cambodian border."

The public will recognize the absurdity of saying you are five miles inside Cambodia when you were actually 50 miles away.

Follow with the quote from the Kerry campaign saying that Kerry was near Cambodia, but not in it.

Then end the ad with a line about how John Kerry can't be trusted.
Also, "swiftvets.com" should run along on the bottom of the ad to get people to come here for more info and to buy the book.

So this ad will do 4 things:
1) Show to a wide audience that Kerry has been less than truthful about his Vietnam record over a span of manys years.
2) It will bring a hint of credibility to the Swift Vets other claims about John Kerry's service. It is much easier for someone to believe your version of the story if you have already been proven right once before.
3) Since this ad is using Kerry's own words and the words of his biographer and campaign spokespeople against him, the focus will be less on the individual credibility of the people making the charges (which is what happened with the first ad) and more on if the actually facts of the ad are true.
4) After the ad is released, Kerry's people will fan out and say that Kerry was just mixed up about the dates and was "near Cambodia" on Christmas Eve, but actually was in the country later in Jan. and Feb. dropping off CIA agents like he has claimed. This puts the ball in Kerry's court. To have any credibility left, Kerry must show that he actually did go to Cambodia at some point. He needs to find someone to back up his story either from his boat or from military records or one of these CIA agents needs to step up and say it was me who gave him the hat. All of this puts the Kerry campaign on the defensive and takes the burden of proof off of the swift vets. If he can't show that he was in Cambodia at some point he's screwed and his credibiliy as a candidate will be damaged beyond repair. If (by some miracle) he actually did go to Cambodia and can prove it, at the minimum, he will look like a fool for telling an obviously false story for so many years and saying it with so much conviction. Everyone knows the guy who always lies to makes himself look better even when he doesn't need to lie. NOBODY wants that guy as President.

[geftink]

In a new ad, it would be good to have the men who actually were on the very same boat with Kerry who say he is lying. To the viewing public, this would be a logical response to the lie that the Kerry campaign has been spouting, that "none of the men were on Kerry's boat. " I understand from reading on the internet that Steve Gardner who was on Kerry's swift boat longer than anyone, some guy whose name I can't remember on the whaler, and another guy named Bollodeau or something like that was on Kerry's boat , have all indicated Kerry is lying. Gardner has spoken out, and he makes a great appearance. The liberals may still say that these guys were not on the boat with Kerry, but the public of course will believe these men (Gardner, etc.) and it will look bad for the Kerry campaign if they still spout lies.

Kansas City

[Mona]

[integritycounts]

Mona, I do not disagree with you at all.
My point is only that the nature of the first ad, is first hand accounts, of veterans that were there. That is the power of the ad. That is why the ad can not be taken appart.

If you were working for a political campaign you could not create an ad like what the Swift Vets have.

My vote remains, any ads should be first hand accounts of Veterans. You can only do so much in an ad, getting people to want to find out more is the ultimate as far as effectiveness.

The power of the first ad is the crediblity of the Veterans, they try to attack the add on on the normal levels...the funding...the whatever....but in the end....the power of Veterans speaking in the ad, trumps all the Media critics.

It's the Vets.

[Scott]

I'm with integritycounts. Furthermore, I believe that there's one vet who can be included in the ad that would be absolutely devastating: John Kerry.

Include some of his statements to Congress during Winter Soldier. Let voters too young to remember that time and those issues actually hear the way John Kerry slandered his fellow Vietnam veterans.

Then let the Swiftvets counter the claims.
_________________
Bye bye, Boston Straggler!

[Mona]

[igor]

imo...

Don't leak out the contents of the ad early. It only gives Kerry extra time to counter or even counter as soon as the ad is released. The longer they are in a state of shock, like with the Christmas in Cambodia lie, the longer they will take to effectively respond, and the more credibility they will lose.

Release the ad on Monday for greater effect, so that it remains in the news the whole week, as Saturday's and Sunday's seem to be quieter.

[Tony]

In Florida - they have been playing an ad a great deal which starts with Kerry saying something to the effect of "I defended this country as a young man in Viet Nam and I will do the same as President".....

I would like to see an ad that starts with the same quote from Kerry and then moves into shots of Kerry meeting with the communists, his picture in the Hanoi museum, speaking at war protests, throwing his medals, testifying before congress all the while the voice over lists his record on defense, the fact that his fellow sailors don't support him, some quotes from a POW who was forced to listen to John Kerry in prison and all the good stuff we know could be listed including some stats about his anti-military votes and dismal support of defense and military issues later in life. Tag line at the end would be something to the effect of "When you move beyond the sound bite, Mr Kerry's record on defense speaks for iteself...."
_________________

http://tonyk.smugmug.com/photos/1822816-L-1.jpg
USN 1983-1992

[silenthunter]

I suggest looking at the Constitution, perhaps as a highlighted background. Target Article III, Section 3, on the definition of treason.
Include comments by General Giap. Include photos of his award in Ho Chi Minh City at the Museum. Include his trip to France to conspire with the enemy while he was still on active duty.

Include also the 14th Amendment, Section 3 of which states:

"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...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."

Based on this, demand forfeiture of all public pay and benefits, and full restitution for same, since Kerry's departure from Vietnam.

I'm just a little angry at the moment, so please bear with me.

Liars, cowards, and traitors are real high on my personal "To Do" list. Especially when I'm the SOB who's paying them!
_________________
R.E. Gleason, YN2
Navy '67-'71
Staff, Rear Admiral James D. Ramage,
COMCARDIV7, '70-'71
USS Oriskany, CVA34, '69-'71

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it won't be needed until someone tries to take it away." -- Thomas Jefferson

[republicanveteran]

I like the last post. Read the consorting with the enemy law, then fade to his testamony to congress, expose that lie, then go to the cambodia lie. A lot can be said in one minute....

[iggit]

How about what he really is????

Moderator -- now really, iggit; that's way over the top.