« Cartooning | Main | Jo_Ke goes Gore »
September 22, 2004
Swift Boat ad
If you haven't seen it yet, do review the new ad that the Swiftees are releasing soon. It is short and to the point with a devasting ending. Interestingly, even though I usually don't listen to "talking heads", especially when I first get home from work (I need some quiet time to unwind and recharge) I flipped on the TV on the way to either TLC or HGTV and ran across John O'Neill being grilled by Alan Colmes on FoxNews. Alan was bound and determined to have a "gotcha" moment with John, asking repeated if the use of the word "betrayed" in the ad meant John Kerry had committed "treason." John, of course, said that was a deflection he refused to engage in, that "treason" was a legal word and at this time he did not believe it was applicable.
I concur. IMHO one can betray -- one's friends, one's peers, one's spouse, even one's country -- without rising to the level of treason. I'm interested in your opinions on this. Watch the ad and comment. I'll post more later on what experience in my own past leads me to my opinion. Yes, I'm coming at this personally since I actually recall the "Winter Soldier" testimony as it took place in early 1971, when I was a high school junior; a very politically aware 16 year old.
Posted by Darleen at September 22, 2004 06:33 AM
Comments
Darleen, have you seen his whole testimony? He is reporting the claims of other eye-witnesses, not making accusations.
You do realize that war crimes and atrocities did happen in Vietnam, right? That's not exactly a big surprise to you, I'm sure. And if our guys do it, it's wrong. Just like the Iraq prison torture - wrong is wrong.
Leaders often have talks with enemy leaders, so I would have to know the details. Maybe Kerry was involved in some negotiations which saved our troops' lives.
If something wrong or treasonous was done, they should have just said what it was. But the ominous implication without any specifics is suspect, especially since the Swifties' previous ads have turned out false and misleading, and unsupported by anything but statements from conservatives.
If treason offends you, as it does me, what about the outing of Valerie Plame? That is treason, by law, and it was done by someone in the administration, with the help of Robert Novak. Does that bother you?
If my Dems ever outed a CIA undercover agent like that, I would be mad as hell.
Posted by: Binacontenda at September 22, 2004 08:11 PM
Scott
The Plame thing is under investigation (I mean, it's been in all the papers) and while there is some serious problems IF you deem Valerie a CIA "operative" (and it looks as if she was merely a CIA employee, no longer an active agent and outside of the five year rule). Certainly Wilson has been caught lying since Valerie really did pull strings to get him to trot around North Africa sipping sweet tea, seeing the sights and Jayson-Blairing a report of "uranium? what uranium?" People have been subpoenaed and depositions are being taken.
Nothing the Swiftees have said has been shown false. Period. You don't think their book hasn't been scrutinized down to the last period and comma?
John Kerry testified to war crimes as policy. That is the cruz of his betrayl, as that testimony was used by the North Vietnamese as part of the torture they visited upon American POWs. And the VVAW had several frauds where many of the "testilying vets" weren't vets at all.
Posted by: Darleen at September 23, 2004 06:40 PM
Hi Darleen,
So have you see the whole testimony? I think it's available on the CSPAN website. Take a look and you'll see how misleading the ad was.
I found out that Kerry's meeting with the VC in Paris was about negotiating for release of POW's. Good for him.
You know, I suspect that you simply conclude whatever feels good to you, and then look around for whatever you can find that seems to support it, while igoring contrary evidence. I prefer to look at relevant evidence and then form a conclusion. Comments? What would a Republican leader have to do for you to oppose them or to say they were wrong? If they can do no wrong in your view, then your support is merely religious fanaticism.
Plame was indeed a covert CIA agent. Joe Wilson said she was not involved in the decision for him to go, and she wasn't - she just recommended him for it. Check into it. The revelation of her name also put other operatives and sources in jeopardy. It put lives at risk. That's why it's felony treason.
Also, Kerry said that the policy in Vietnam allowed the atrocities, not that they were ordered as policy. Which is true.
You don't say if the possible felony treason in outing Plame bothers you. Is that hard to say?
Here's the urban legends page about claims about Kerry, some of them from the Swifties:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/kerry.asp
And more debunking, with lots of references:
http://blog.johnkerry.com/rapidresponse/archives/002901.html#more
Some SBVFT claims have indeed been found false, and their opinions are not supported by documentation or anything but their statements, which have been contradictory. The scenario that they are telling the truth and are sincere does not fit the facts or their previous statements - some of them praised Kerry's service even recently, some have recanted, and almost none of them actually "served with" Kerry. Some were not even in Vietnam at the same time. Look into it.
One lie, for example, was that they were not involved in politics - some of them were in a group which attacked McCain, and were working with Nixon felon Chuck Colson in the '70's.
Nobody takes them seriously anymore - I'd drop it if I were you.
Posted by: Binacontenda at September 23, 2004 09:11 PM