Bush adviser quits after appearing in swift boat ad

[Thomas Veil]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/21/edwards.swiftboat/index.html


ROANOKE, Virginia (CNN) -- A volunteer adviser has quit President Bush's re-election campaign after appearing in a veterans group's television commercial blasting Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's involvement in the Vietnam-era antiwar movement.

A Bush campaign statement said it did not know that retired Air Force Col. Ken Cordier had appeared in an ad by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Damn. I was hoping it was Karl Rove. :D

This whole thing seems to be backfiring on Bush and/or the renegade Swifties, though. Yesterday an editor at the Chicago Tribune, who was there and who'd previously been silent on the issue, corroborated Kerry's version (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040822_625.html) of what happened:


The Swift Boat group also was being challenged by a Chicago Tribune editor who was on the Feb. 28, 1969, mission for which Kerry received the Silver Star. William Rood, 61, said he decided to break his silence about the mission because recent reports of Kerry's actions in that battle are incorrect and darken the reputations of veterans who served with Kerry.

[zimv20]

But with only one jumping to Kerry's side, that still makes the tally 255 Swifties against Kerry to something like 11 for Kerry.
one of the guys in the ad admitted what he'd said was simply hearsay -- repeated from someone else who claimed to be there. if we can apply that loose standard, then just about anyone can be counted, eh?

[Sayhey]

But with only one jumping to Kerry's side, that still makes the tally 255 Swifties against Kerry to something like 11 for Kerry.

Is that how you judge who tells the truth? There are Vietnam era vets who don't like the role Kerry played in the anti-war movement after he returned, but what does that animosity have to do with lies about his service? Stelliform, check out the many facts that have been posted on this topic and then try to see the lies of these ads for what they are.

[mactastic]

There were 3 officers there that day. One dead, one is John Kerry, one is the newspaper reporter who just corroborated Kerry's version of events.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Glad to see that Bush has finally seen fit to condemn the ads. And call for campaign ad reform, that was to been taken care under the law.

[Leo Hubbard]

one of the guys in the ad admitted what he'd said was simply hearsay -- repeated from someone else who claimed to be there. if we can apply that loose standard, then just about anyone can be counted, eh?
That would be the same guy who recommended Kerry for his Bronze star, in writting, based on hearsay. So sure lets do that. :D

[Leo Hubbard]

I want to see Kerry sue swift boats against kerry group for slander and libel.
I want to see the evidence that both sides will have to produce.
I want the judge to subpeana all of Kerry's military and medical records as evidence in the case.
I want to see who'll win it.

[blackfox]

You know, I overheard this commentary (on FOX News, no less) yesterday or today, and the gist of it was as such:

" I don't think the candidates should be battling it out about events 30 years old...as whether GW Bush is a evaded service, or whether Kerry's service was as heroic as he implies...as important as these issues may seem to some, there are plenty of decent issues here in the NOW, that the public should be clamoring for and the candidates should be discussing...all this talk of the past is distracting and somewhat irrelevant..."

(above paraphrased by me)

Now many people will argue the reason these things are an issue (ranging from the GOP Spin/Distraction Machine, to the Kerry Campaign using a relatively short military tenure as a lynchpin of his Campaign...to the nature of the media in general.)

Once again, I have to re-itterate, why should anyone care? Why is the behavior of a young 20-something supposed to be indicitative of the character of a middle-aged, wiser adult with 30 more years of life experience?

I just think this is all the epitome of stupid...on both sides. Sorry to rant a little, but there is plenty for the candidates to harp on that is RECENT...why a trip down memory lane...

[Chip NoVaMac]

I want to see Kerry sue swift boats against kerry group for slander and libel.
I want to see the evidence that both sides will have to produce.
I want the judge to subpeana all of Kerry's military and medical records as evidence in the case.
I want to see who'll win it.

Leo, I still want to see Bush taken in for war crimes....

[mactastic]

I want to see Kerry sue swift boats against kerry group for slander and libel.
I want to see the evidence that both sides will have to produce.
I want the judge to subpeana all of Kerry's military and medical records as evidence in the case.
I want to see who'll win it.

Any court action would take far, far longer than the time between today and election day. By then Kerry's either the also-ran or he's the POTUS. Either way, the matter will be moot by then.

[pseudobrit]

My issue is not what happened in Vietnam, but what is happening today. John Kerry is trying to stop freedom of speech. He is not responding to the attacks himself. He isn't getting up there and saying this is false because.... He is just calling for the ads to stop. What is is afraid of? Are the Swifties telling the truth, and he doesn't want to get caught in more lies? Why isn't he responding on a point by point basis?

I wouldn't rely on World Net Daily for my news.

Ever see The Contender?
"To answer the questions would mean it was acceptable for them to be asked in the first place."

You don't address bottom-feeding scum unless you are bottom feeding scum. You don't stoop to their level. Should Clinton have come out and denied allegations that he'd murdered people? Why give loonies a forum?
Should he have allowed all the conspiracy whackos to sit down with him and interview him, so he could "respond on a point by point basis"?

By your reasoning, it's only fair that Bush and Cheney should address Moore's F9/11 accusations (which have official documentation to support them, not hearsay) on a point by point basis.

You have a double standard for your Rs and Ds methinks.

[Thanatoast]

If anyone has the chance to see The Daily Show today (monday) or its repeat. Do. I'm almost sad that the show isn't taken too seriously, because they point out thing point blank, and people laugh, rather than being shocked.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Link here about threats to "Unfit for Command" distributors. (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40062)



My issue is not what happened in Vietnam, but what is happening today. John Kerry is trying to stop freedom of speech. He is not responding to the attacks himself. He isn't getting up there and saying this is false because.... He is just calling for the ads to stop. What is is afraid of? Are the Swifties telling the truth, and he doesn't want to get caught in more lies? Why isn't he responding on a point by point basis?

How do you feel about the duck and cover that GW and Dick have done?

Reminder Dick does not want the the records of energy meetings he held made public.

Also he and GW did not want to testify at the the 9-11 commission. Then they only agreed after they were given the ability to meet NOT under oath.

I can't remember if you had such feelings over these issues as you do over Kerry's call for responsible campaign ads.

My question is what is GW afraid of?

[Neserk]

My issue is not what happened in Vietnam, but what is happening today. John Kerry is trying to stop freedom of speech.


Freedom of speech does not include the freedom to lie :rolleyes:

[Chip NoVaMac]

If anyone has the chance to see The Daily Show today (monday) or its repeat. Do. I'm almost sad that the show isn't taken too seriously, because they point out thing point blank, and people laugh, rather than being shocked.

I have not seen the episode that you mentioned. I have seen others and understand what you mean. There are times given my "liberal" leanings that what has been said there has given me a pause for serious thought.

There are many people that don't realize that "comic's" are a source to be able to look deep in ourselves. To realize our biases and prejudices.

Even though I consider myself to be a "liberal", I find myself agreeing with the "conservative" comic at times. Too bad that many more people can't see themselves in the comic relief that some shows give. We do learn from situations like that; if we are willing.

[Leo Hubbard]

Freedom of speech does not include the freedom to lie :rolleyes:
Tell Kerry that. :rolleyes:

[Neserk]

Tell Kerry that.

It isn't Kerry who needs to be told that. It is the SBVT and those who think them shutting up is a violation of their freedom of speech.

[Leo Hubbard]

It isn't Kerry who needs to be told that. It is the SBVT and those who think them shutting up is a violation of their freedom of speech.
Someone needs to go and look up the deffinition of free speech.

[Thanatoast]

Someone needs to go and look up the deffinition of free speech.Someone needs to go look up the definition of slander.

[IJ Reilly]

Someone needs to understand that some things are worth saying and some things are not.

[blackfox]

someone needs to stop kicking a dead horse...especially since we shouldn't be talking about horses in the first place...

[zimv20]

that horse isn't even dead! that's a self-inflicted wound that didn't even bleed! and he was awarded the preakness! aggggghhhhhhhhh!!!!!

[Neserk]

Someone needs to go and look up the deffinition of free speech.

Lying is not included in free speech :rolleyes: Think about it for a sec.

[Neserk]

Is it my imagination or are the people around here a bit crankier than usual?

[mactastic]

Another of the SVBT crowd has admitted he only heard about Kerry's actions thirdhand, yet he signed an affidavit swearing to having personal knowledge of the events of that day.

Link (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040824_1014.html)

Alfred French of the Clackamas County district attorney's office appears in the ad sponsored by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. In the spot, French says: "I served with John Kerry. ... He is lying about his record."

In an interview with The Oregonian newspaper last week, French said he relied on the accounts of three other veterans in making the statement about Kerry and did not personally witness the events. French did not return two messages left at his office Monday.


"As a senior assistant district attorney, you know as well as we do that that kind of ridiculous statement would never pass muster in a court of law," veteran Terry Kirsch said of French's account.


"We question your fitness to serve as an enforcer of the law after swearing to facts in a legal affidavit that you do not know to be true," he said.


Before recording the ad, French signed an affidavit that said: "I am able to swear, as I do hereby swear, that all facts and statements contained in this affidavit are true and correct and within my personal knowledge and belief."


It goes on to say that "Kerry has wildly exaggerated and lied about his record in Vietnam" and that he received his Purple Heart medals "in the absence of hostile fire."

[Lyle]

Freedom of speech does not include the freedom to lie... Lying is not included in free speech.I started to ask what you meant the first time you posted this opinion, but figured it would be sort of pointless. But out of sheer curiosity, I'll take the bait this time. ;)

I'm obviously not going to argue that lying is, universally, a good thing; I'm just curious about the context of your statements. To quote the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."OK, so no prohibition there against lying in general. Now, if you're specifically referring to legal issues of libel and slander, fraud, what have you, fair enough: that's being discussed elsewhere in this thread and I'm satsified to just let that run its course. But are you appealing to some higher philosophical standard that prohibits a husband from telling his wife that those jeans don't make her look fat when in fact they do? ;)

[Neserk]

I started to ask what you meant the first time you posted this opinion, but figured it would be sort of pointless. But out of sheer curiosity, I'll take the bait this time. ;)



Refering to libel slander, etc.