The W
Views: 101389867
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
18.12.07 0740
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Swift Boat vets launch ad # 2
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next(747 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (78 total)
Cerebus
Scrapple
Level: 109

Posts: 1004/3491
EXP: 13702995
For next: 256695

Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 1 day
#21 Posted on 20.8.04 1849.58
Reposted on: 20.8.11 1850.04
Why hasn't anyone liberally suggested closing the politics forum until AFTER the elections?

Yes, this IS a joke, but then you wouldn't have to hear about the anti-Bush and anti-Kerry crap. Why do all politicians have to succumb to trash talking thier opponents instead of talking about thing that really matter like how to get out of Iraq without it looking even MORE like Vietnam or how to get our economy back on track.

...and people wonder why I'll waste my vote on Ralph Nader again. It's because Bush and Kerry are fucking cry baby assholes that don't seem to have any care for actual issues that concern the people, they would rather make each other look bad, that's why.
AWArulz
Knackwurst
Level: 109

Posts: 839/3417
EXP: 13703380
For next: 256310

Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#22 Posted on 20.8.04 2137.35
Reposted on: 20.8.11 2139.00
    Originally posted by SKLOKAZOID
    I don't see Kerry charging any of these men with committing war crimes.


Back when you were busy being born, I was in the army and on Funeral duty, escorting remains of Vietnam Vets KIA to their final resting places as a Military Policeman. And kids would come to their funerals at the gravesite and at the Funeral home with "baby Killer" signs.

Because John Kerry told america we were all baby killers. Along with Hanoi Jane, of course. We (me and my generation of veterans) will NEVER forgive him.
Crimedog
Boerewors
Level: 42

Posts: 58/374
EXP: 493073
For next: 28293

Since: 28.3.02
From: Ohio

Since last post: 2766 days
Last activity: 2756 days
#23 Posted on 21.8.04 0017.54
Reposted on: 21.8.11 0017.55
    Originally posted by SKLOKAZOID
    I think this ad will backfire. With the testimony of Kerry intercut with the vets talking about how betrayed they felt, it's going to show viewers their true motives.

    We live in a society where movies like Platoon, Apocalypse Now, and The Deer Hunter have all been well-recieved, and all three hinted at or portrayed war crimes in some fashion, so it is pretty ingrained in our culture that Kerry's testimony has some degree of credibility. Maybe not with the Vietnam vets that were personally affected, but American culture has accepted over the years that atrocities did happen in Vietnam.

    This commercial makes the vets look as if they cannot accept the war crimes that popular culture has accepted.




Their true motives seem to be telling people that John Kerry brags about his service in Vietnam on the one hand and denigrates Vietnam veterans on the other hand. He can't have it both ways. Yes, he was young and had gone through things that I can't hope to understand, but I'll be damned if I'm going to support someone who accused basically everyone who fought in Vietnam of war crimes. If he wants to present himself as Mr. "Reporting for Duty", then he has to deal with criticism from those who want to know how he can reconcile that with his testimony and actions over the last 30 years. I don't remember John Kerry ever bragging about his Vietnam service until it became politically expedient to do so.

I think Platoon, Apocalypse Now and The Deer Hunter are all brilliant films. That sure as hell doesn't mean I accept war crimes.
DrOp
Frankfurter
Level: 60

Posts: 656/859
EXP: 1732043
For next: 40745

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2290 days
Last activity: 1157 days
#24 Posted on 21.8.04 1307.02
Reposted on: 21.8.11 1308.18
Pool-Boy--please don't attempt to lump me into some category for your own points. There are some issues that I am liberal on and some issues that I am conservative on. You *assume* that I am a Democrat.

My post was nothing more than an example of a post by ME, nothing more.

The great thing about being an American is that I don't HAVE to like Bush OR Kerry. Just because I may vote for Kerry doesn't mean that I beleive in him 1000%. I look at candidates and vote for the person who *I* prefer. That's what's great about voting--It's my vote to cast to my reasons.

You act as if there isn't as much doubt about Bush's war intelligence and intentions as there are to Kerry's record at this point--that if the intelligence was faulty AND Bush was unaware of it then that somehow excuses him. As Commander-in-Chief, I say no. The buck stops with him.

As for 9/11--How quickly we forget how divided the nation was on Bush as President before the attacks. The unity that came afterward re-wrote his presidency forever. Same with Guilliani in NY.


Downtown Bookie
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 320/647
EXP: 1120726
For next: 36400

Since: 7.4.02
From: The Inner City, Now Living In The Country

Since last post: 190 days
Last activity: 84 days
#25 Posted on 21.8.04 1344.24
Reposted on: 21.8.11 1347.09
    Originally posted by Pool Boy
    Kerry has been trumpeting his Vietnam service, and here comes a group of credible witnesses that challenge his version of events....He calls them liars, as do all of you. Where is a point-by-point rebuttal of their claims?...I don't expect any of you to rebut their claims- how could you when Kerry himself hasn't given you any ammunition? Kerry is the one who stands accused of lying, only he can come out and set the records straight.
Perhaps the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are credible; perhaps not so. As has already been pointed out in another thread (The W) one of the detractors has himself changed his story several times over the years as to what happened. Now, another officer who was actually there has stepped forward (story.news.yahoo.com) to criticize the Swift Boat Vets for Truth:
    Originally posted by Carol Giacomo, Reuters
    An American journalist who commanded a boat alongside John Kerry in Vietnam broke a 35-year silence on Saturday and defended the Democratic presidential candidate against Republican critics of his military service.

    Weighing in on what has become the most bitterly divisive issue of the 2004 campaign for the White House, William Rood of the Chicago Tribune said the tales told by Kerry's detractors are untrue.

To address the quote at the top of this post, it would appear, then, that Senator Kerry isn't the only one who can come out and set the record straight. Pool Boy, however, is 100% correct in his expectations that no one one this board would refute the claims of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth; after all, how could they, as only those who were actually there are in a position to say what really happened.
    Originally posted by William Rood, as quoted in the article
    There were three swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than 35 years ago -- three officers and 15 crew members.
Just as an aside, fifteen plus three is eighteen. A significantly smaller number than two hundred and fifty.
    Originally posted by William Rood, as quoted in the article
    Only two of those officers remain to talk about what happened on February 28, 1969. One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other.
So, if Mr. Rood's comments are accurate, 100% of the officers who were there that day who are now alive agree with Senator Kerry's account of what transpired.
    Originally posted by William Rood, as quoted in the article
    Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown. The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there.
Now, again, I personally can neither confirm not refute anyone's account of what happened, be it Senator Kerry or Mr. Rood or the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, having not been there myself. However, seeing that all who were on the same boat with Senator Kerry stand by his account, and 100% of all the the living officers who were there agree with Senator Kerry's account, it would appear that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have some problems in the credibility department. At least, IMHO.

(edited by Downtown Bookie on 22.8.04 0007)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 3786/4700
EXP: 21717909
For next: 118753

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1325 days
Last activity: 1122 days
#26 Posted on 23.8.04 0654.10
Reposted on: 23.8.11 0654.14
I find delicious irony in the fact that Kerry is lodging a formal complaint with the FCC over the ad...
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 141

Posts: 1812/6370
EXP: 33947768
For next: 172330

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 12 hours
#27 Posted on 23.8.04 1124.22
Reposted on: 23.8.11 1124.39
I find it ironic that John Kerry and his boy Edwards come out and complain all about the ads, yet have never once said anything to distance themselves from MOVEON.ORG and even go so far as hiring on of its directors to help with Kerry's ad campaign.

John Kerry was in Viet Nam. John Kerry Got wounded. I respect John Kerry for his service.

John Kerry came back, and basically tried to convince the American Public at large that everybody over in Viet Nam were murdering thugs, out to destroy the nation, while people were still dying. Many of them, in a war that they themselves might not have agreed with, but didnt go out of thier way to get sent home after four months of service. I cannot reconcile that, no matter what version of what story he has said since he returned.

John Kerry has ALWAYS made a point of talking about his service. He has also made a career in public service helped greatly by the notoriety he recieved from his service. To be upset that people question the validity of something that he himself has trumpeted for 30 or so years is hypocritcal.

John Kerry voted for a war in Iraq. Then he said he didnt read the resolution. Then he said he didnt support the war. Then he said he would vote the same way again, even if he knew no WMD were there.
He is doing exactly what people have been accusing him of. Saying whatever it takes to get people on his side.



RYDER FAKIN
Six Degrees of Me
Level: 63

Posts: 263/961
EXP: 2038549
For next: 58614

Since: 21.2.02
From: ORLANDO

Since last post: 18 days
Last activity: 18 days
AIM:  
#28 Posted on 23.8.04 1432.41
Reposted on: 23.8.11 1434.32
Bush Denounces Ads by Outside Groups

Click Here (news.yahoo.com)

Checkmate.

In Texas at his ranch, Bush said, "I don't think we ought to have 527s," a reference to the outside groups that have poured millions of dollars over the past year into attack ads. Bush himself has been a main target of ads costing some $60 million. Bush said all of the ads should be stopped.

"That means that ad," he said, referring to the anti-Kerry ad, "and every other ad."

The anti-Kerry ad, no longer running but much publicized in news accounts, says Kerry didn't deserve his Purple Hearts, lied to get his Bronze Star and Silver Star and unfairly branded all veterans with his 1971 congressional testimony about atrocities in Vietnam.

"I couldn't be more plain about it," Bush said "I hope my opponent joins me in condemning these activities of the 527s."


So now the poltical football is back in Kerry's hands...I think it's quite obvious that without 527's the alleged "grass roots anyone but Bush" movement would have not gotten this far. But, what's good for the goose is good for the gander (Swift Boat vets taking advantage of the same loophole to bash) - and to watch not only Kerry, but someone like Edwards cry the blues about "dirty politics" is...well, funny is the word I'll use, over sad, pitiful and/or pathetic. Now, it's up to Kerry/Edwards to condemn their golden parachute, much to the chagrin of Soros, who has too much money to be involved in this crap anyway.

Politics at it's finest. Almost like it was planned.

FLEA
spf
Scrapple
Level: 133

Posts: 2894/5404
EXP: 27328618
For next: 524122

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 46 days
Last activity: 3 days
AIM:  
#29 Posted on 23.8.04 1528.52
Reposted on: 23.8.11 1529.02
Checkmate only for those of us wonks who actually give a good hearty crap about who is funding what ad by which group. If I'm Kerry I come out today and "denounce" these ads and promise that as president I will support legislation to regulate all soft money advertising by outside groups because in the end what he says mean absolutely nothing. Just like Bush calling for this won't stop the Swifties or any other anti-Kerry group from running advertising. In the end this is absolutely a non-issue.

Unrelated to Flea's post, but really, this seems the ultimate election for having to forgive whichever candidate you support their youthful foibles. George Bush was a drunken possibly coke-addled loser through most of his youth, and John Kerry was a Nam vet who may or may not have served bravely and upon coming home was prone to hyperbole to get across his point. Really, both candidates have done quite enought to merit despising them during their time in public office.
JoshMann
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1124/2159
EXP: 6383333
For next: 9466

Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 2348 days
Last activity: 2345 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#30 Posted on 23.8.04 1534.02
Reposted on: 23.8.11 1535.53
Meanwhile, Bush coming out for this doesn't make him the winner of this little battle, he won because this little battle became a little battle in the first place. Granted, if Kerry could go 5 minutes without bringing up Vietnam, this would never happen, whether the ads are true are false are not the point. Typical of any election year, both parties are going to reach for the side of right and both be wrong to do so.

The point is this is a nonsense issue. And the more time spent getting caught in the mud here is less time that things that actually involve leading the free world get discussed. But those are the dreams of fools like I.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 97

Posts: 1134/2708
EXP: 9011133
For next: 306225

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 14 days
Last activity: 15 hours
#31 Posted on 23.8.04 1600.47
Reposted on: 23.8.11 1601.12
    Originally posted by Blanket Jackson
    Granted, if Kerry could go 5 minutes without bringing up Vietnam, this would never happen, whether the ads are true are false are not the point.


Not necessarily. He would have brought it up in some fashion or he would have been accused of being ashamed. I would like to think you are correct but I doubt it.
kazhayashi81
Potato korv
Level: 54

Posts: 615/677
EXP: 1190378
For next: 43499

Since: 17.6.02
From: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Since last post: 2757 days
Last activity: 2708 days
AIM:  
#32 Posted on 23.8.04 2317.00
Reposted on: 23.8.11 2319.43
Personally, I think that a much better attack on Kerry would be why's essentially done fuck-all in 20 years in Congress. Never pushed a major bill, never taken a firm stand on anything... I think it would be much more relevant to how he'd run the country than Vietnam.

But what the hell do I know, I'm voting third party regardless...
Crimedog
Boerewors
Level: 42

Posts: 61/374
EXP: 493073
For next: 28293

Since: 28.3.02
From: Ohio

Since last post: 2766 days
Last activity: 2756 days
#33 Posted on 23.8.04 2337.22
Reposted on: 23.8.11 2338.07
    Originally posted by kazhayashi81
    Personally, I think that a much better attack on Kerry would be why's essentially done fuck-all in 20 years in Congress. Never pushed a major bill, never taken a firm stand on anything... I think it would be much more relevant to how he'd run the country than Vietnam.



Yup. Which will probably be the next round. But since Kerry made Vietnam his No. 1 campaign stance _ which was an incredibly stupid thing to do _ the Republicans went after that first.
King Of Crap
Goetta
Level: 38

Posts: 225/309
EXP: 348220
For next: 22230

Since: 17.9.03
From: Holley, New York

Since last post: 3533 days
Last activity: 3464 days
AIM:  
#34 Posted on 23.8.04 2347.19
Reposted on: 23.8.11 2348.38
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Then he said he didnt support the war. Then he said he would vote the same way again, even if he knew no WMD were there.


Not true, he said he would still vote to give Bush the power to go to war, but if he were president at the time, he wouldn't have gone to Iraq.
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 141

Posts: 1815/6370
EXP: 33947768
For next: 172330

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 12 hours
#35 Posted on 24.8.04 0154.32
Reposted on: 24.8.11 0154.57
Which makes perfect sense for Kerry. Stand against something if its his own neck on the line, but gladly help somebody else take all the risks.
fuelinjected
Banger
Level: 97

Posts: 2377/2679
EXP: 9250319
For next: 67039

Since: 12.10.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 3318 days
Last activity: 3318 days
#36 Posted on 24.8.04 0207.23
Reposted on: 24.8.11 0207.35
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Which makes perfect sense for Kerry. Stand against something if its his own neck on the line, but gladly help somebody else take all the risks.


Which allows us to go full circle back to Vietnam and George "Where Was I Again?" Bush, Dick "I had better things to do" Cheney, and John "7 Deferrments" Ashcroft, who never ever came out against the Vietnam War. They were for the Vietnam war but by golly, they used every connection they had to avoid going while the less privileged were sent to slaughter.

Guys who stand for something but really don't because they won't put their necks on the line for it.

(edited by fuelinjected on 24.8.04 0008)
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 141

Posts: 1816/6370
EXP: 33947768
For next: 172330

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 12 hours
#37 Posted on 24.8.04 0230.05
Reposted on: 24.8.11 0230.49
John Ashcroft asked for, and was granted student deferrals. This means what exactly? He applied, like thousands of others did, and was granted a deferal, like thousands of others. Are all of them somehow "bad" in your eyes?

Why wasnt Dick Cheney drafted? Did he get a deferal? In 1969 he was working in the white house. He was already serving his nation.

Not going to attack Rumsfeld too? Or would his service in the military as a pilot somehow torpedo your attempt to slam all in the Bush administration on thier war records?

GWB was honorably discharged from the ANG. If there was significant problems, his CO should have addressed it at the time. He got realeased early from his commitment to work on a campaign. Again, he asked, and it was granted.
He did serve in the gaurd. He did serve, and was discharged honorably. Unlike our previous President who never showed up to get his draft situation taken care of.
Its not like Bush was in Moscow organizing protests against his nation or anything. Or, accusing every person honorably serving of being murderers and rapists.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 97

Posts: 1136/2708
EXP: 9011133
For next: 306225

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 14 days
Last activity: 15 hours
#38 Posted on 24.8.04 0835.55
Reposted on: 24.8.11 0835.55
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Why wasnt Dick Cheney drafted? Did he get a deferal? In 1969 he was working in the white house. He was already serving his nation.


I believe he received several deferments.
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 141

Posts: 1817/6370
EXP: 33947768
For next: 172330

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 12 hours
#39 Posted on 24.8.04 0906.06
Reposted on: 24.8.11 0906.43
    Originally posted by DrDirt
      Originally posted by StaggerLee
      Why wasnt Dick Cheney drafted? Did he get a deferal? In 1969 he was working in the white house. He was already serving his nation.


    I believe he received several deferments.


Like I said, I dont know his status during the years before 1969, when he started working in the White House. But, I am fairly sure that if he was working there, he was probably already an employee of the federal government already after graduating college.
SKLOKAZOID
Bratwurst
Level: 76

Posts: 784/1468
EXP: 3837860
For next: 168219

Since: 20.3.02
From: California

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 7 hours
AIM:  
#40 Posted on 24.8.04 0938.35
Reposted on: 24.8.11 0938.37
John Kerry has been talking about the issues. Just because it's not in a one-sentence Yahoo.com headline doesn't mean they aren't being talked about in-depth. It just means that they aren't exciting enough to entertain you with.

Bush is addressing the issues, too. That's all he's talking about at those pep rallys where his Stormtroopers screen for canned audiences.

I'm sure you people are well aware of how the media frames things, but that doesn't stop you from being victims to it. Every night, shows like NBC Nightly News strip out a 4-second clip from a Bush or Kerry rally and make it seem like that was the ONLY thing they were talking about. Online/print publications pick out maybe one or two soundbites, context be damned.

If you really believe that neither candidate is talking about the issues, or that Vietnam is the primary on the campaign trail, you're buying it. The Swift Boat Ad wouldn't even be a big deal, airing in only three states, if the national media didn't shove it in our faces and spoonfeed it to us. They want you to be willingly ignorant and easily entertained.

So, how about that Scott Petersen?



    Vice President Dick Cheney received five deferments during the Vietnam War from 1963 to 1966, a period of heightened American commitment in Vietnam. He later dismissed questions about his failure to serve by simply saying, "I had other priorities in the '60s." [McGrory, Washington Post, 7/27/00; Geyer, Chicago Tribune, 2/6/04; Arizona Republic, 1/22/04]


There. See? I looked that up! Simple.

As StaggerLee said, if Cheney was working for the White House in '69, he must have been doing SOMETHING on the road there. Still, I don't trust this man to make any decisions over American lives.


    Originally posted by Crimedog
    Their true motives seem to be telling people that John Kerry brags about his service in Vietnam on the one hand and denigrates Vietnam veterans on the other hand. He can't have it both ways.


Yes, he can. He has had it both ways for 30 years now. And he plays it up as being both a citizen and a serviceman. He's trying to say, "I went in and got shot at for my country, then came back and had sense of mind to ask why we were getting shot at." I don't think he's successfully getting that across like he wants to, though.


As far as motives go, it's more than apparent at this point that the Swift Boat Vets want revenge for what Kerry did after the war. They didn't do this for money, they'd do it for free. Kerry isn't being attacked because he didn't "bleed enough," or that he "didn't really earn his Bronze Star." It's because he projected a negative perception of the Vietnam soldier and they want to hit him back.

Now, they're trying to create a negative perception of him and play the same game. Good. They deserve to have a voice, and they will be attacked just as John Kerry has been attacked. Kerry politicized his Vietnam service in his candidacy, and these vets are now politicizing themselves.


    Originally posted by Crimedog
    I think Platoon, Apocalypse Now and The Deer Hunter are all brilliant films. That sure as hell doesn't mean I accept war crimes.


That's why I didn't write, "Crimedog has accepted war crimes because they're in movies." These images have been perpetuated in movies, such as the ones I listed, but there is very little protest to those images.

The more a message is repeated, the more pervasive it is. Obviously, a movie's goal is to entertain and make money. However, as these movies have become accepted, some messages are sent to their audience. Due to the subversive nature of media, there is some passive acceptance of the images in the movies. Otherwise, society would have denounced the messages in some way by now. The events are not true accounts, but the messages are still put out there, good and bad.

The media reinforces racial stereotypes all the time. When confronted and forced to think cognitively, we don't accept those images, but when we're not confronted, we're victims of hegemony (passive dominance by the media).
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 NextThread ahead: In Spite of Us
Next thread: Nearly 36 Million Americans Live in Poverty
Previous thread: Immigration policy
(747 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Swift Boat vets launch ad # 2Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.67 seconds.