Thank goodness it appears this time that our candidate will not hesitate to fight back

[mtnsnake]

as Obama has shown so far. That is one HUGE thing we shouldn't have to worry about.

Even during the primaries he didn't hesitate to hit back immediately after someone hit him, and so far he's proving that this policy of slamming back will carry over during the general election.

The Right Wing will not have a field day with their rumors this time, like they did in 2004. Not for a single hour. No longer will their bullshit rumors be ignored until they turn into reality. As far as that shit goes, the lying neocons are in for a big surprise this time. Yeah baby

[babylonsister]

1. ...

[goldcanyonaz]

15. LOL, did you faint?

hehe

[Blue-Jay]

17. I just shit myself and died.

[shadowknows69]

18. I admit I did too, but I'm big enough to say, K+R this post. Good on mtnsnake.

[RB TexLa]

2. That's a start. Now can we have a candidate that attacks first.

[L0oniX]

13. I think that,so far You Tube does most of the fighting against McLame...

or in other words, McLame is fighting himself. :evilgrin:

[Blue-Jay]

16. He attacks with broken glass and bear traps!

[RB TexLa]

27. Hope so.

[PoliticalAmazon]

68. Important thing is that Obama does it with class--no personal attacks...

no horseshit swiftboat attacks.

As long as Obama does it with class and abstains from personal attacks, always sticking to the truth, McCain will be in big trouble.

[BOSSHOG]

3. And its so sad that it has come to that

That a candidate has to devote so much time and energy to fight the garbage thrown at him by the elements of evil who know that such garbage sexually excites the kind of citizen who would vote for a member of the gop. Incredibly sad. And sad that the likes of limbaugh and hannity and their ilk could not possibly find gainful employment any other way.

[mtnsnake]

7. The time spent fighting back & explaining the truth is time that is extremely well spent

and will reap huge longterm benefits.

Yes, it is sad, though, that it has come to this, but the fact that Obama is NOT ignoring it gives me great confidence that he'll also be explaining other issues to the sheeple, such as taxes, which the Right Wing uses to mislead everyone all the time.

[BOSSHOG]

8. Yessireee!

If the junior Senator from Mass had taken similar action in 2004 he'd be soon settling into his second term as President.

[redqueen]

22. Well when the vast majority of the M$M exists solely to prop up a corporatocracy...

this is what happens.

At least now we have a candidate who isn't afraid to fight the smears the whores won't be honest about.

[Zachstar]

4. Yes, Don't forget to spread the word about the Fight the Smears

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome/

Once McCain has been pushed back into landslide loss territory we can use this to fight the smears on candidates for senate and house.

[mtnsnake]

6. Fight the Smears is a great sign of things to come. It's showing that we're thinking ahead for once.

[tridim]

24. Speaking of which..

http://fightthesmears.org/ is now claiming a RickRoll.

Not sure if I buy it based on his comments, but at least there wont be any further confusion.

[zanne]

5. That's one of the things I love about Obama.

He'll take the high road, but he'll defend himself from rightwing smears and he doesn't take any crap.

[hisownpetard]

10. Absolutely. He's awesome that way (and in many other ways, as well). I love how

he addresses the issue immediately and without histrionics, just calls it as it is
and moves on.

Can't wait for him to be President.

[zanne]

11. I dream about Obama becoming president...

I'm already planning an Inauguration Party!

[madura]

55. I've noticed a change in him. no more nice guy - now it's rough and tumble

against the established machine that McCain represents.

but this is how he planned it all along and i do like the changeling. It will take a hella lot force to move the mountains

[TexasObserver]

9. If anything was learned by 2004, it is that attacks must be answered.

and quickly

[Zachstar]

12. Indeed.

[blm]

30. The smears were answered and countered but corpmedia would not air them and few even reported

the counters occurred.


Imagine if Obama's speech on race after Wright was refused broadcast by EVERY NEWS CHANNEL. Then see Wright video clips given months of broadcast and reporting while editting out any counters. What would you be saying now about Obama and how he handled that episode?

THAT is exactly what happened with the swifts - and some of you now side with the media's tactics as you reward them by repeating the perception they created for them.

What would you do if they deliberately refused to broadcast Obama's speeches and gave minimal news coverafe to his counterattacks?

The media climate for Obama in 2008 is nothing like the cormedia climate that saw them completely dug in to protect Bush post 9-11 - especially since they expected favorable FCC rulings for media owners in a Bush second term.

But, hey, comparing apples with oranges is fun for some of you.

[politicasista]

35. Exactly

It would be nice if some (not all) of Obama's supporters would see that.

[beachmom]

54. Thank you, BLM. Also, I think the liberal blogs have matured, and are now

read by the MSM. We also have YouTube.

If I had a wayback machine, it would have been so cool if the Swifts had been YouTubed. Their own words would have been used against them, since they constantly were caught in lies and had to make up new ones. A mere 3 minute YouTube would have demolished their attacks as laughable. Alas, we did not have that technology nor an audience with the media at the time. We do now.

[shadowknows69]

14. I knowyou used to be a Clinton supporter and this is not to slight her but

They're already trying the same weak stuff that DIDN'T work for her. That has to tell you they're scared shitless, and they've got nothing of substance.

[americanstranger]

19. Fox had to apologize twice this week alone.

That in itself is a huge change from campaigns past - they never apologized for all the shite they dumped on Kerry.

Like I've said all along - they've never come up against a candidate like Obama, and they will learn to back off after he hands their asses to them a few times.

- as

[MadMaddie]

49. Fox is only apologizing because they are losing ratings......

that's what they are afraid of.

[Dharmacrat]

20. that is because he has huge balls... so far I have been very impressed...

...loved when he confronted Leiberman

[redqueen]

21. Completely agree.

This will be a huge wake up call to lots of poeple who were fooled by the lying liars... and a source of constant anger and frustration for those who know they're lying but don't care.

Huzzah!

[redqueen]

23. "Error: You've already recommended that thread."

Heh... I forgot that I already did.

Here's another kick at least, anyway. :)

[grace0418]

25. I *just* wrote this in an email to a friend of mine...

"I think there are a whole lot of people who are (sadly) influenced by right-wing whisper campaigns, and Faux News, and those stupid emails that make the rounds ("Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a terrorist who won't wear a flag pin and took his oath of office on a Koran! GASP! ZOMG!!11!!11"). But the thing that's really exciting me is that Obama's campaign is choosing to attack this shit head on instead of ignoring it like Kerry, Gore and others have done. The right-wing has had a strangle-hold on things like email blast campaigns, and I think the key to convincing the easily confused and influenced sheep (i.e. 75% of America) about what's really important is in wresting that influence from the right-wing. So far I think Obama has been pretty masterful at that. "

[blm]

32. BS - Other Dems are s'posed to attack back. In 2004 most Dems feared Bush at his strongest

and would not get on tv everyday and attack Bush for Kerry or get his back ona daily basis as needed.

You don't see Obama attacking back, do you? You see Kerry and Biden doing it FOR him.

Fer chrissakes, people, Obama couldn't even lift a finger in 2004 as an attack dog for Kerry because he hadn't had any experience on that stage. It was up to seasoned Dems to do that job. They failed Kerry AND us.

Why do you all see that Obama 's surrogates are doing a great job attacking back for him, but blame Kerry for not doing every aspect of the 2004 campaign himself?


Kerry needed a Kerry-calibre surrogate. Kerry had the last Dem president on a summer book tour supporting Bush and defending him in nearly interview he did against the very criticisms Kerry was making against Bush at the time.

2008 is nowhere near as steep a mountain as 2004.

[politicasista]

34. Thank you

It's easier to knock Kerry than appreciate the help he is given to Obama and blame him for everything that went wrong in 04, while the Dems that didn't back him up get free passes.

[grace0418]

36. Oh good grief.

I wasn't knocking Kerry. He said himself that he wished he'd spoken out more.

[grace0418]

37. Actually I do see Obama attacking back.

I've seen him attack back several times already.

Nor am I blaming Kerry for anything. Like I said below, he's said himself he wish he'd been more quick to respond to smears in 2004.

And just because you don't agree or perhaps haven't been paying attention doesn't mean my point is BS.

[blm]

38. Your point IS bs. Kerry took all the blame because he's a man. He attacked back just enough and it

was the DEMOCRATIC spokespeople, other lawmakers and the WEAK LEFT MEDIA who did not FURTHER HIS COUNTERATTACKS. And apparently, you didn't even know about the counters and didn't do your job furthering the truth, either.

Try and find left media and Dem spokespeople furthering Kerry's speech attacking the swifts and challenging Bush to debate their services at that time instead of hiding behind the swifts - that should have been broadcast on all the networks and been a weeklong slamfest for Dems and left media right?

You can pore over the blogs and the news reports at the time and you'll see few even mentioned it and not even DU or kos or any other left site took up the RALLYING VRY Kerry started did they?

You are the one who didn't pay attention at the time. I could tell you dates and content of every counter.

You really need to put it in perspective - It would be equal to media ONLY playing Wright's videoclips in heavy rotation for months while refusing to BROASCAST Obama's answer to it including his speech on race.

[grace0418]

50. I know lots of people with last-word-itis and find the best thing to do is let it

run its course. I would ask you if we could agree to disagree but you'd call that "bs" too.

So I will just smile and tell you "Yes, of course, since you could tell me the dates and content of every counter you simply MUST be right."

And then I will roll my eyes and walk away.

[blm]

60. Accessing the facts is important. People should use their eyes to read more and roll less.

.

[karynnj]

62. You remind me of a younger sister

who whenever I was winning an argument - would restate her side the say the "argument is ended" I think she quit this at around 13, but it was extremely annoying.

The fact is that BLM could do as she said - and there is a research thread here at DU. Her analogy with regards to the Wright issue is on target. Did you know Kerry spoke to the SBVT before the Firefighters. It was billed as his response - and as BLM says the media did not play it. What is amazing is that they gave HOURS to unknown people, even as they were caught in lies, but would not give time to the Democratic nominee, a US Senator who in the 1990s was once designated by Time as the most honest man in politics, and a man who the Navy gave two prestigious medals and 3 puple hearts to.

In fact, Kerry's service record was a clearer case than the Wright problems. Before the SBVT hit in August, Kerry had already given the media over a 100 pages of Navy records - the fitness reports spanned the entire interval and all were glowing. The media had played Nixon tapes just a week before around convention time that showed he investigated Kerry two years after the fact and found he was a cleancut war hero. The Navy gave him the medals. The Doug Brinkley book, written by an academic historian over which Kerry had no control backed Kerry 100% - and many future SBVT said good things about him. The media knew that everyone in his boat for any medal backed him.

Can you prove anything in your life better than this? Read that list and your only conclusion should be that it was a media condoned character assassination - one they are to some degree continuing by speaking of it in terms that do not 100% say it was a completely dishonest political attack. then they need to admit that they knowingly abetted it. Nice way to pay back the 25 year old kid who risked his life.

[grace0418]

64. So you'd rather I keep arguing with someone who blew one part of my post completely out of

proportion, called my opinion bullshit and would not accept "let's agree to disagree"? Is that somehow more mature than just letting it go?

This is a person who said that Obama never fought back at all and let everyone else do the fighting for him, which is completely untrue (or should I say "BS", which IMHO is far more immature than letting someone have the last word they so desperately desire). My original point has far less to do with Kerry than you and blm want to make of it. I have no problem with John Kerry and never did. I thought he was treated shamefully and never said otherwise. But the fact remains that Obama has learned some lessons from the past and is using them. Which I am very happy about.

Can I prove anything in my life better than this? Yes, I can. But do I wish to devote that much time to proving my point on an internet message board just so I can can have the last word and be RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT? No, sorry, I don't. If that makes me on par with your teenage sister then I'd say she was a smart girl, wise beyond her years, who knew when to pick her battles.

[karynnj]

66. I didn't see her say that Obama never fought back - which I would

agree with you on. I did see one statement that pointed out that on each attack, the Obama surrogates, most successfully Daschle and Kerry, were out there first - and often hit harder than Obama later did. This is NOT criticism of Obama. It is the norm and happened in every election. (Even in 2004, Max Cleland was out there hitting the SBVT far harder than Kerry could have done without jeopardizing how people perceived him.)

I do think Obama has learned from Kerry's experience and he has many Kerry people on his staff, who saw things first hand. Kerry, himself, has been a key part in fighting many of these attacks. You are seeing a slight to Obama where I do not see one - the criticism was to the stronger voices in the Democratic party who opted not to use them.

You misunderstood my comment on proving something - the point was that I doubt anyone could have given the media more concrete proof of the facts of anything than Kerry gave on his service - and I listed what they had before August. Once they attacked, Kerry gave them 36 pages documenting lies and inconsistencies. He also reached out to anyone who was there to get more people to speak out - though the media failed to cover many of them. How many lies do you have to show a person says before anything else he says is discredited. Open your eyes - this Kerry didn't fight back is a second swiftboating - placing the blame on Kerry rather than a media that knowingly spread lies.

I could not provide more on my education or my work record. Do you think the people in the media actually believed that Kerry's service was questionable? Implying that Nixon, who commanded people to destroy Kerry wouldn't have used ANYTHING he found out to discredit one of the few credible anti-war spokesman? This was a media character assassination - and not just from Fox News. It was beyond anything Obama has yet faced. (It should also be noted that Kerry was MORE successful in the primaries batting off the SBVT and the intern rumor than he was with the SBVT in the GE. As BLM said how do you deal with all mass communication channels being used against you. Now, we have more sophisticated blogs and You tubes - but it will still be tough to compete with the MSM, if it is as unbalanced as it was in 2004.

[blm]

67. I didn't say Obama never fought back, just that the OTHER Dems are backing him up

appropriately and hitting hard so he doesn't HAVE to get on tv every day and do it - no presidential nominee should.

And WHEN the nominee does, then the party and the left media needs to provide back up.


You don't see Obama out there doing all his own fighting - and no one should want to see him doing it.

[mtnsnake]

41. You nailed it

But the thing that's really exciting me is that Obama's campaign is choosing to attack this shit head on instead of ignoring it like Kerry, Gore and others have done.

Yup, that aspect will not be happening this time. One less thing to worry about. Good post.

[blm]

47. Good post to those who promote media lies over truth - those who side with accuracy rely on DATA.

The research forum has working links on these excerpts for those interested in spreading the TRUTH instead of the media driven perception.



April 14, 2004 - The website for SBVT was registered under the name of Lewis Waterman, the information technology manager for Gannon International, a St. Louis company that has diversified interests, including in Vietnam. (1) (note - Gannon International does not appear to have any relationship to Jeff Gannon/Guckert, the fake reporter.)

May 3, 2004 - "Kerry campaign announced a major advertising push to introduce 'John Kerry's lifetime of service and strength to the American people.' Kerry's four month Vietnam experience figures prominently in the ads." (2)

May 4, 2004 - The Swift Liars, beginning their lies by calling themselves "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", went public at a news conference organized by Merrie Spaeth at the National Press Club. (1)

May 4, 2004 - "The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event...The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.' " (3)


May 4, 2004 - Aug. 5, 2004 - No public activity by Swift Liars (?) Wikipedia entry (7) notes "When the press conference garnered little attention, the organization decided to produce television advertisements." (Ed. note - were there any public info or announcements, other than talk on blogs? Was there anything going on publicly? Did the campaign have reason to foresee what was coming - note that they must have, see the reactions to each ad).

Jul. 26, 2004 - Jul. 29, 2004 - Democratic National Convention held in Boston. John Kerry's military experience is highlighted.

Aug. 5, 2004 - The Swift Liars' first television ad began airing a one-minute television spot in three states. (7)

Aug. 5, 2004 - "the General Counsels to the DNC and the Kerry-Edwards 2004 campaign faxed a letter to station managers at the relevant stations stating that the ad is 'an inflammatory, outrageous lie" and requesting that they "act immediately to prevent broadcast of this advertisement and deny any future sale of time. " ' " (4)

Aug. 10, 2004 - Democracy 21, The Campaign Legal Center and The Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that the Swift Liars were illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections. (4)

Aug. 17, 2004 - the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges. (4)

Aug. 19, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced its own ad "Rassmann." (4)

Aug. 20, 2004 - The Swift Liars' second television ad began airing. This ad selectively excerpted Kerry's statements to the SFRC on 4/22/1971. (7)

Aug. 22, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced another ad "Issues" which addressed the Swift Boat group's attacks.

Aug. 25, 2004 - The Kerry-Edwards campaign ... dispatched former Sen. Max Cleland and Jim Rassmann, to Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas to deliver to the President a letter signed by Democratic Senators who are veterans. (The letter was not accepted.) (4)

Aug. 26, 2004 - The Swift Liars' third television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's claim to have been in Cambodia in 1968. (7)

August 26, 2004 - Mary Beth Cahill sends letter to Ken Mehlman detailing the "Web of Connections" between the Swift Liars and the Bush Administration, and demanding that Bush denounce the smear campaign. (5)

August 26, 2004 - Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) submits FOIA request "with the White House asking it to detail its contacts with individuals connected to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT)." (6)

Aug. 27, 2004 - The DNC ran a full page ad in the Aug. 27, 2004 New York Times terming the Swift Boat campaign a smear. (4)

Aug. 31, 2004 - - The Swift Liars' fourth television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's participation in the medal-throwing protest on 4/23/1971. (7)

References:
* (1) SourceWatch article on SBVT

* (2) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman

* (3) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: Kerry Campaign Response

* (4) (Sept. 8, 2004) Eric M. Appleman (apparently) Some Responses to the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" Ad

* (5) August 26, 2004 letter from Mary Beth Cahill to Ken Mehlman

* (6) Press Release (US Newswire): CREW FOIAs White House Contacts with Swift Boat Veterans Group

* (7) Wikipedia entry, Swift Vets and POWs for Truth



MH1 - This topic is to create a timeline of the response of the K/E04 campaign to the Swift Liars' smears. There is an RW-encouraged myth that K/E04 "didn't respond." As the timeline, once completed, will show, that is not true. Effectiveness of the response may be debated - that is subjective - the purpose of this thread is to collect the facts of the events.




On Aug. 19, 2004 Kerry himself responded directly in a speech to the International Association of Firefighters' Convention in Boston. (from prepared remarks)
...And more than thirty years ago, I learned an important lesson—when you're under attack, the best thing to do is turn your boat into the attacker. That's what I intend to do today.

Over the last week or so, a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been attacking me. Of course, this group isn’t interested in the truth – and they're not telling the truth. They didn't even exist until I won the nomination for president.

But here's what you really need to know about them. They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They're a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won't denounce what they’re up to tells you everything you need to know—he wants them to do his dirty work.

Thirty years ago, official Navy reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam.

As firefighters you risk your lives everyday. You know what it’s like to see the truth in the moment. You're proud of what you’ve done—and so am I.

Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: "Bring it on."

I'm not going to let anyone question my commitment to defending America—then, now, or ever. And I'm not going to let anyone attack the sacrifice and courage of the men who saw battle with me.

And let me make this commitment today: their lies about my record will not stop me from fighting for jobs, health care, and our security – the issues that really matter to the American people...



Kerry defends war record
Aug. 19: John Kerry responds directly to attacks on his Vietnam military service Thursday, accusing President Bush of relying on front groups to challenge his war record.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=40a0d9b1-0386-41ef-bc ...



May 4, 2004. The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event. (Above are, r-l, Wade Sanders, Del Sandusky and Drew Whitlow). Senior Advisor Michael Meehan said, "The Nixon White House attempted to do this to Kerry, and the Bush folks are following the same plan." "We're not going to let them make false claims about Kerry and go unanswered," Meehan said. He said his first instinct was to hold a press conference with an empty room where veterans could testify to their time spent in the military with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Spaeth Communications, which hosted the event, "is a Republican headed firm from Texas which has contributed to Bush's campaign and has very close ties to the Bush Administration." Lead organizer John O'Neill, a Republican from Texas, "was a pawn of the Nixon White House in 1971." Further some of the people now speaking against Kerry had praised him in their evaluation reports in Vietnam.

John Dibble, who served on a swift boat in 1970, after Kerry had left, was one of the veterans at the Kerry event. He said of Kerry's anti-war activities that at the time, "I didn't like what he was doing." In retrospect, however, Dibble said, "I probably should have been doing the same thing...probably more of us should have been doing that." He said that might have meant fewer names on the Vietnam Memorial and that Kerry's anti-war activities were "a very gutsy thing to do."

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/interestg/swift050404c ....



Kerry campaign's quick response to Swift boat vets
By Marie Horrigan
UPI Deputy Americas Editor
Washington, DC, Aug. 5 (UPI) -- The campaign for Democratic Party presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts issued an exhaustively researched and extensively sourced 36-page refutation Thursday of allegations Kerry lied about events during his service in Vietnam, including how and why he received medals, and had fled the scene of a battle.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040805-012143 ...



Kerry: Bush lets attack ads do 'dirty work'
McClellan points out criticism by anti-Bush group
Friday, August 20, 2004 Posted: 2:37 PM EDT (1837 GMT)
BOSTON, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry accused President Bush on Thursday of letting front groups "do his dirty work" in questioning his military service during the Vietnam War.

"The president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that," Kerry told a firefighters' union conference in his hometown of Boston.

"Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: Bring it on."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/19/kerry.attacka ... /


http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/oldtricks.php




August 5, 2004

VIA FACSIMILE

Re: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

Dear Station Manager:

We are counsel to the Democratic National Committee and John Kerry, respectively. It has been brought to our attention that a group calling itself "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" has bought time, or may seek to buy time, on your station to air an advertisement that attacks Senator Kerry. The advertisement contains statements by men who purport to have served on Senator Kerry's SWIFT Boat in Vietnam, and one statement by a man pretending to be the doctor who treated Senator Kerry for one of his injuries. In fact, not a single one of the men who pretend to have served with Senator Kerry was actually a crewmate of Senator Kerry's and the man pretending to be his doctor was not. The entire advertisement, therefore is an inflammatory, outrageous lie.

"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" styles itself as a group of individuals who personally served with John Kerry in the United States Navy in the Vietnam War. In truth the group is a sham organization spearheaded by a Texas corporate media consultant. It has been financed largely with funds from a Houston homebuilder. See Slater, Dallas Morning News, July 23, 2004.

In this group's advertisement, twelve men appear to make statements about Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam. Not a single one of these men served on either of Senator Kerry's two SWIFT Boats (PCF 44 & PCF94).

Further, the "doctor" who appears in the ad, Louis Letson, was not a crewmate of Senator Kerry's and was not the doctor who actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet. In fact, another physician actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet. Letson is not listed on any document as having treated Senator Kerry after the December 2, 1968 firefight. Moreover, according to news accounts, Letson did not record his "memories" of that incident until after Senator Kerry became a candidate for President in 2003. (National Review Online, May 4, 2004).

The statements made by the phony "crewmates" and "doctor" who appear in the advertisement are also totally, demonstrably and unequivocally false, and libelous. In parrticular, the advertisement charges that Senator Kerry "lied to get his Bronze Star." Just as falsely, it states that "he lied before the Senate." These are serious allegations of actual crimes -- specifically, of lying to the United States Government in the conduct of its official business. The events for which the Senator was awarded the Bronze Star have been documented repeatedly and in detail and are set out in the official citation signed by the Secretary of the Navy and the Commander of U.S. Forces in Vietnam. And yet these reckless charges of criminal conduct are offered without support or authentication, by fake "witnesses" speaking on behalf of a phony organization.

Your station is not obligated to accept this advertisement for broadcast nor is it required to account in any way for its decision to reject such an advertisement. Columbia Broadcasting System v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94 (1973), You Can't Afford Dodd Committee, 81 FCC2d 579 (1980). The so-called "Swift Boat Veterans" organization is not a federal candidate or candidate committee. Repeated efforts by organizations that are not candidate committees to obtain a private right of access have been consistently rejected by the FCC. See e.g., National Conservative Political Action Committee, 89 FCC2d 626 (1982).

Thus, your station my freely refuse this advertisement. Because your station has this freedom, and because it is not a "use" of your facilities by a clearly identified candidate, your station is responsible for the false and libelous charges made by this sponsor.

Moreover, as a licensee, you have an overriding duty "to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising." Licensee Responsibility With Respect to the Broadcast of False, Misleading or Deceptive Advertising, 74 F.C.D.2d 623 (1961). Your station normally must take "reasonable steps" to satisfy itself "as to the reliability and reputation of every prospective advertiser." In re Complaint by Consumers Assocation of District of Columbia, 32 F.C.C.2d 400, 405 (1971).

Under these circumstances, your station may not responsibly air this advertisement. We request that your station act immmediately to prevent broadcasts of this advertisement and deny andy future sale of time. Knowing that the advertisement is false, and possessing the legal authority to refuse to run it, your station should exercise that authority in the public interest.


Please contact us promptly at either of the phone numbers below to advise us regarding the status of this advertisement.

Sincerely yours,
Marc Elias
Perkins Coie
607 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005


General Counsel
Kerry-Edwards 2004 Joseph Sandler
Sandler, Reiff & Young
50 E Street, S.E. #300
Washington, D.C. 20003


General Counsel
Democratic National Committee


http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/ads04/dem080504ltrswift ...




From the transcript of the Aug. 5, 2004 White House Press Briefing with Scott McClellan:

Q Do you -- does the President repudiate this 527 ad that calls Kerry a liar on Vietnam?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President deplores all the unregulated soft money activity. We have been very clear in stating that, you know, we will not -- and we have not and we will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam. I think that this is another example of the problem with the unregulated soft money activity that is going on. The President thought he put an end -- or the President thought he got rid of this kind of unregulated soft money when he signed the bipartisan campaign finance reforms into law. And, you know, the President has been on the receiving end of more than $62 million in negative attacks from shadowy groups.

* * *

In the days after the release of the ad a host of major newspapers published editorials condemning it including the Arizona Republic ("Campaign Non-Starter," August 6), Los Angeles Times ("It's Not All Fair Game," August 6), Plain Dealer ("Ad Says Kerry Lied; Record Says Otherwise," August 8), St. Petersburg Times ("An Ugly Attack," August 9), Las Vegas Sun ("Ad's Smear Should Be Condemned," August 9), Oregonian ("Now It Gets Nasty," August 11), and Washington Post ("Swift Boat Smears," August 12).

* * *

On Aug. 10, 2004 Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center and the Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections.

* * *

From the transcript of Bush's Aug. 12, 2004 appearance on CNN'S Larry King Live:


KING: In view of that, do you think that it's fair, for the record, John Kerry's service record, to be an issue at all? I know that Senator McCain...
G. BUSH: You know, I think it is an issue, because he views it as honorable service, and so do I. I mean...
KING: Oh, so it is. But, I mean, Senator McCain has asked to be condemned, the attack on his service. What do you say to that?
G. BUSH: Well, I say they ought to get rid of all those 527s, independent expenditures that have flooded the airwaves.
There have been millions of dollars spent up until this point in time. I signed a law that I thought would get rid of
those, and I called on the senator to -- let's just get anybody who feels like they got to run to not do so.
KING: Do you condemn the statements made about his...
G. BUSH: Well, I haven't seen the ad, but what I do condemn is these unregulated, soft-money expenditures by very wealthy people, and they've said some bad things about me. I guess they're saying bad things about him. And what I think we ought to do is not have them on the air. I think there ought to be full disclosure. The campaign funding law I signed I thought was going to get rid of that. But evidently the Federal Election Commission had a different view...

Kerry spokesman Chad Clanton's response to Bush's Aug. 12, 2004 appearance:
"Tonight President Bush called Kerry's service in Vietnam 'noble.' But in the same breath refused to heed Senator McCain's call to condemn the dirty work being done by the 'Swift Boat Vets for Bush.' Once again, the President side-stepped responsibility and refused to do the right thing. His credibility is running out as fast as his time in the White House."

* * *

On Aug. 17, 2004 the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges.

* * *

DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe issued a statement on Aug. 18, 2004:

"By saying nothing at all George W. Bush is a complicit contributor to the slanderous, lie-filled attack ads that have been launched on John Kerry on Bush's behalf. Instead of stepping up and taking the high road, George Bush's response has been evasion, avoidance, everything but disavowal.

"Larry King asked George Bush to 'condemn' it. He refused. Reporters asked the President's Press Secretary if he'd 'repudiate' it. He ducked. They can try to blame it on the rules or whoever else they want, but the blame belongs squarely on the Republicans. They wrote it. They produced it. They placed it. They paid for it. And now it is time for George W. Bush to stand up and say, 'enough.'

"This is not debate, Mr. President, and this unfounded attack on Senator Kerry has crossed the line of decency. I call on you today to condemn this ad, the men who put their lies behind it, and the donors who paid for it. It's time."

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/ads04/swiftadresponse.h ...




(August 19, 2004 -- 01:26 PM EDT)

WELL, IT SEEMS there wasn't something in the air.

I didn't know the Kerry campaign was finally going to return fire today over this Swift Boat nonsense. But this morning, in a speech to the International Association of Fire Fighters in Boston, he responded squarely to the attacks. You can see complete text of the speech and the new response-ad they're running. But the key point is that he aimed his remarks at precisely the right target ...

Over the last week or so, a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been attacking me. Of course, this group isn?t interested in the truth ? and they?re not telling the truth. They didn?t even exist until I won the nomination for president.
<...>


This is a good thing -- and not simply because Kerry has to respond to the president's surrogates who are trying (and, to an extent, succeeding) in damaging his candidacy with scurrilous and discredited attacks.

There is a meta-debate going on here, one that I'm not sure even the practitioners fully articulate to themselves and one that I'm painfully aware the victims don't fully understand.

Let's call it the Republicans' Bitch-Slap theory of electoral politics.

It goes something like this.

On one level, of course, the aim behind these attacks is to cast suspicion upon Kerry's military service record and label him a liar. But that's only part of what's going on.

Consider for a moment what the big game is here. This is a battle between two candidates to demonstrate toughness on national security. Toughness is a unitary quality, really -- a personal, characterological quality rather than one rooted in policy or divisible in any real way. So both sides are trying to prove to undecided voters either that they're tougher than the other guy or at least tough enough for the job.

<…>

This meta-message behind the president's attacks on Kerry's war record is more consequential than many believe. So hitting back hard was critical on many levels.

more



Altercation Book Club: Lapdogs by Eric Boehlert
Relatively early on in the August coverage of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth story, ABC's Nightline devoted an entire episode to the allegations and reported, "The Kerry campaign calls the charges wrong, offensive and politically motivated. And points to Naval records that seemingly contradict the charges." (Emphasis added.) Seemingly? A more accurate phrasing would have been that Navy records "completely" or "thoroughly" contradicted the Swifty. In late August, CNN's scrawl across the bottom of the screen read, "Several Vietnam veterans are backing Kerry's version of events." Again, a more factual phrasing would have been "Crewmembers have always backed Kerry's version of events." But that would have meant not only having to stand up a well-funded Republican campaign attack machine, but also casting doubt on television news' hottest political story of the summer.

When the discussion did occasionally turn to the facts behind the Swift Boat allegations, reporters and pundits seemed too spooked to address the obvious—that the charges made no sense and there was little credible evidence to support them.. Substituting as host of "Meet the Press," Andrea Mitchell on Aug. 15 pressed Boston Globe reporter Anne Kornblut about the facts surrounding Kerry's combat service: "Well, Anne, you've covered him for many years, John Kerry. What is the truth of his record?" Instead of mentioning some of the glaring inconsistencies in the Swifties' allegation, such as George Elliott and Adrian Lonsdale 's embarrassing flip-flops, Kornblut ducked the question, suggesting the truth was "subjective": "The truth of his record, the criticism that's coming from the Swift Boat ads, is that he betrayed his fellow veterans. Well, that's a subjective question, that he came back from the war and then protested it. So, I mean, that is truly something that's subjective." Ten days later Kornblut scored a sit-down interview with O'Neill. In her 1,200-word story she politely declined to press O'Neill about a single factual inconsistency surrounding the Swifties' allegations, thereby keeping her Globe readers in the dark about the Swift Boat farce. (It was not until Bush was safely re-elected that that Kornblut, appearing on MSNBC, conceded the Swift Boast ads were clearly inaccurate.)

Hosting an Aug. 28 discussion on CNBC with Newsweek's Jon Meacham and Time's Jay Carney, NBC's Tim Russert finally, after weeks of overheated Swifty coverage, got around to asking the pertinent question: "Based on everything you have heard, seen, reported, in terms of the actual charges, the content of the book, is there any validity to any of it?" Carney conceded the charges did not have any validity, but did it oh, so gently: "I think it's hard to say that any one of them is by any standard that we measure these things has been substantiated." Apparently Carney forgot to pass the word along to editors at Time magazine, which is read by significantly more news consumers than Russert's weekly cable chat show on CNBC. Because it wasn't until its Sept. 20 2004 issue, well after the Swift Boat controversy had peaked, that the Time news team managed enough courage to tentatively announce the charges levied against Kerry and his combat service were "reckless and unfair." (Better late than never; Time's competitor Newsweek waited until after the election to report the Swift Boat charges were "misleading," but "very effective.") But even then, Time didn't hold the Swifties responsible for their "reckless and unfair" charges. Instead, Time celebrated them. Typing up an election postscript in November, Time toasted the Swift Boat's O'Neill as one of the campaign's "Winners," while remaining dutifully silent about the group's fraudulent charges.

That kind of Beltway media group self-censorship was evident throughout the Swift Boat story, as the perimeters of acceptable reporting were quickly established. Witness the MSM reaction to Wayne Langhofer, Jim Russell and Robert Lambert. All three men served with Kerry in Vietnam and all three men were witnesses to the disputed March 13, 1969 event in which Kerry rescued Green Beret Jim Rassmann, winning a Bronze Star and his third Purple Heart. The Swifties, after 35 years of silence, insisted Kerry did nothing special that day, and that he certainly did not come under enemy fire when he plucked Rassmann out of the drink. Therefore, Kerry did not deserve his honors.

It's true every person on Kerry's boat, along with the thankful Rassmann, insisted they were under fire, and so did the official Navy citation for Kerry's Bronze Star. Still, Swifties held to their unlikely story, and the press pretended to be confused about the stand-off. Then during the last week in August three more eyewitnesses, all backing the Navy's version of events that there had been hostile gun fire, stepped forward. They were Langhofer, Russell and Lambert.

Russell wrote an indignant letter to his local Telluride Daily Planet to dispute the Swifties' claim: "Forever pictured in my mind since that day over 30 years ago John Kerry bending over his boat picking up one of the rangers that we were ferrying from out of the water. All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach; although because of our fusillade into the jungle, I don't think it was very accurate, thank God. Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river."

The number of times Russell was subsequently mentioned on CNN: 1. On Fox News: 1. MSNBC: 0. ABC: 1. On CBS: 0. On NBC: 0.

Like Russell, Langhofer also remembered strong enemy gunfire that day. An Aug. 22 article in the Washington Post laid out the details: "Until now, eyewitness evidence supporting Kerry's version had come only from his own crewmen. But yesterday, The Post independently contacted a participant who has not spoken out so far in favor of either camp who remembers coming under enemy fire. “There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river,” said Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat that was directly behind Kerry’s. Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the “clack, clack, clack” of enemy AK-47s, as well as muzzle flashes from the riverbanks." (For some strange reason the Post buried its Langhofer scoop in the 50th paragraph of the story.)

The number of times Langhofer was subsequently mentioned on CNN: 0. On Fox News: 0. On MSNBC: 0. On ABC: 0. CBS: 0. NBC: 0.

As for Lambert, The Nation magazine uncovered the official citation for the Bronze Medal he won that same day and it too reported the flotilla of five U.S. boats "came under small-arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks."

The number of times Lambert was mentioned on. On Fox News: 1. On CNN: 0. On MSNBC: 0. ABC: 1 On CBS: 0. On NBC: 0.

Additionally, the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs, who served as the paper's point person on the Swifty scandal, was asked during an Aug. 30, 2004, online chat with readers why the paper hadn't reported more aggressively on the public statements of Langhofer, Russell and Lambert. Dobbs insisted, "I hope to return to this subject at some point to update readers." But he never did. Post readers, who were deluged with Swifty reporting, received just the sketchiest of facts about Langhofer, Russell and Lambert.

If that doesn't represent a concerted effort by the press to look the other way, than what does?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12799378/#060518



Please use this information as a guideline for 2006 and 2008 campaigns. What the media edits out of our campaigns is CRUCIAL to public perception.

Even many Democrats are unaware of the real fight that occurred in 2004 and are buying wholesale the corporate media spin which conveniently protects the corporate media who failed to give honest coverage of Kerry's defense against the lies of the swift vets and their Republican handlers.

Not recognizing the extent of the corporate media's duplicity is a danger for all Democratic candidates in 2006 and 2008.

This can and WILL happen to any Democratic candidate.

This CAN and WILL happen to ANY Democratic candidate. FIGHT THE MYTHS. Stay tough KNOWING the media is aligned with these liars.

[grace0418]

51. Thank you mtnsnake.

I hate to tell you though, I'm apparently all wrong though. :)

[blm]

57. Yes, you are - because DATA pointing to the facts is kryptonite to you. DU's RESEARCH FORUM

Use it BEFORE you further media perception if you care about fighting the media instead of accepting and promoting their lies.

[grace0418]

58. Yes, of course, you are absolutely right.

All caps always makes it right.

[blm]

59. DU Research Forum and the data compiled there. There - because caps or no the truth

should be all that matters to you. Unless you prefer perpetuating the media perception and rewarding them for their complicity.

[phrigndumass]

26. K/R :)

Hopefully he'll go on the offense as well! Thanks for posting this, mtnsnake :D

[jgraz]

28. HAHAHA -- I went to Rec but hit Alert by mistake

Old habits...

:rofl:

[mtnsnake]

43. lol

[Mooney]

29. It's extremely refreshing, isn't it?

It's nice to have a candidate who has me saying "It's about fucking time" instead of "Oh god, no."

[anonymous171]

31. You don't get elected in Chicago unless you can fight.

The primary fight also doesn't seem to have hurt him either. Looks like he learned a couple of tricks from Hillary and her campaign. Trial by fire.

[karynnj]

63. You can't get elected in MA unless you fight either

especially if someone else is the party and the media's preferred candidate - which happened in his first Senate and lt Governor runs. Then in 1996, Weld was clearly the media favorite - playing squash with senior Boston Globe staff and Evan Thomas of Newsweek.

[politicasista]

33. Thank goodness we can promote him without tearing down other Democrats

Especially the ones that are working hard to help him that are constantly hated on here.

Thank goodness that Obama is the RIGHT candidate to learn the lessons of the past, especially since Dems were M.I.A when it came to defending out last two nominees.


Just sayin.

[Mass]

39. Thanks goodness, this time other Democrats will defend the nominee rather than

hoping he fails.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[K Gardner]

42. I'm recommending a post by mtnsnake. The world is truly upside down !

[SemiCharmedQuark]

44. Up is down, black is white, cats and dogs living together!

[Inuca]

46. Cats & dogs DO live together happily :-)

my cat terrorizes (in a friendly but claws out kind of way) my two dogs, and they are not toy dogs. And then they go to sleep together, next to each other. Kind of like DU lately :-).

[Carrieyazel]

45. Just fighting back and not going on offense yourself may not be enough

In order to win, you must go on hard offense. Obama has also shown that he will retreat (like he did on Jim Johnson and Trinity) and not truly fight back.

[ProSense]

48. What's happening is this election cycle is a good thing

It has been building since 2004. Call it lessons learned. Democrats got better at it in 2006, and Obama's campaign is benefiting from that and building on it.

Party organizational unity (which is separate and apart from the primary battle) is a lot better than in 2004.

Still, hind sight shouldn't be revisionist. In 2004, the GOP smear machine, with Rove and the RNC in sync, was aided by media complicity (and a dysfunctional Dem Party infrastructure).

As the 2008 GE unfolds, people have advised Obama to let surrogates counter some of the smear so that he doesn't appear defensive and unfocused on the issues---in other words, so that he can campaign. Senator Kerry and others are playing the role of surrogates in this election.

In 2004, Kerry had to try to counter the smears without appearing overly defensive, which was hard to do without a number of good surrogates having his back. He countered the Swift Liars to the best of his ability (money became an issue because of FEC rules on when it could be spent), but there were not enough surrogates on hand to counter the media's hype of the Liar's POV.

Given that the Democratic Party was MIA in 2004, Kerry did a great job building his campaign organization.

Simply: the GOP put more effort into smear and tampering with the election than the Democrats put into ensuring that Kerry got elected.

Sen. Kerry could have used a few people like himself in 2004.

Obama is going to win.

[treestar]

52. Good!

That is needed more than anything else!

Enough of letting the RW smear and attack and lie and sitting back and taking it!!!

[Zhade]

53. Not only did he fight back, he did it with grace, class and style.

He's quite good.

[SwampG8r]

56. wow snake ....wow

:toast:
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow:
:hi:
:loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya:
:hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::hug:
:yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock:

[democrat2thecore]

61. Loved this quote in your post (inside)....

"As far as that shit goes, the lying neocons are in for a big surprise this time."

I agree - 100%!!!

[Warren DeMontague]

65. No shit. That's the big lesson of 2004.

I agree 100%.

[Skidmore]

69. He's not just fighting back, but he is defining the fight and forcing McCain to

bring the fight to him.

He's ahead of the game in organization and issues. No matter how hard McCain tries to do the same old God, guns, and gays and taxes mantra or tries to peddle fear and terror, it sinks.