pics on Kos: New Kerry Photo Evidence Counters Swift Boat Veterans

[cal04]

AZnomad



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/27/183054/806

[sakabatou]

1. Shows what cowards an asshole these guys are

[Jack Rabbit]

2. Like we needed to prove the Swifties were liars

They were a bunch of electronic brownshirts.

[SPKrazy]

3. Day Late And A Dollar Short

How could he have let these Swifties co-opt his campaign into a defensive one in which he couldn't provide the evidence like this to counter the attacks?

I voted for Kerry, but I think the swifties took him down

[Catch22Dem]

15. It's never too late to make right

And make assholes out of these assholes.

[SPKrazy]

36. But If We Are The Only Ones Who Care

and the majority of the country has moved on then we are just preaching to the choir.

I knew they were full of shit when they attacked.

I defended Kerry whenever I heard it and even on the internets.

But the fact remains, that Kerry didn't fight back very hard and in the end it made him beatable.

(or at least made the race easier to steal)

The margin of victory for * is not high period, and even lower in places like Ohio and Florida.

If he had fought back, they might have had a harder time stealing it.

[Catch22Dem]

45. I know what you're saying, but...

I don't think it's wrong for him to do this, and he has my full support to this day.

[malaise]

97. If journalists did their homework

rather than the bidding of their bosses, this would have been public knowledge before the 2004 election.

[StClone]

58. Bush is their asshole -- a really stinking big one

Think they care now those dumb mofos.

[Bucky]

108. It's about 1500 American lives too late. It's about 10,000 Iraqis too late

It's never too soon. But this news is arriving late. Speaking of late, where were the millionaire TV commentators on this?

[sofa king]

118. It's never too late to punish certain wrongs, either.

Those SVT guys are guilty of a crime so solemn and personal that most of the rest of us have trouble even understanding it.

By untruthfully politicizing Mr. Kerry's record, those people denigrated their own service to our country. By trying to diminish the service of one man, they defiled the service of all Americans. They effectively traded their records in for a few pieces of silver from the Republican Party.

Now their own past service, once considered sacred and invaluable, has been cheapened to the level of the coward whose dismal career they sought to protect by attacking Mr. Kerry.

I propose that we punish them. And I think I know an appropriate way to do it, too. The punishment is simple: you trash the career of a fellow American, and that is what your own record is going to reflect.

I'm going to wait, a decade perhaps, or maybe more, while setting up my political connections. And then one cold night when nobody is paying attention in Congress, I'm going to find someone who remembers and who has the courage to introduce my bill. My bill will require that the service records of all signatories of the Swift Boat Veterans of Truth petition be forever sealed upon each one's death, and in the place of these records will be this one simple note:

Defamed the military service of a fellow American.

[seabeyond]

59. such a very tired line. day late.... yada yada yada. doesnt that get

old for you. cause sure is old for me.

[SPKrazy]

61. It Is Old

I say let's move on

we have bigger fish to fry

Kerry's done, toast

Gore may be coming back to life

Feingold is out there

Clark is out there

Warner is out there

[politicasista]

63. Trashing a Democrat to promote other Democrats gets really old n/t

[seabeyond]

70. yes it does, and i am not even a democrat

and i stand to unite democrats more than quite a few on this democratic site. odd, huh

[politicasista]

73. It is

and I am not a registered Democrat, but I support Democrats that are speaking out and holding Bush's feet to the fire.

[seabeyond]

75. bah hahahah, you arent

a registered dem either, yet here you and i are willing and with enthusiasm to support the dems for what they are doing instead of bitching regardless of what they are doing. yup.... that is odd. and funny as hell

[politicasista]

76. yes ma'am! n/t

[SPKrazy]

104. Fine, Kerry Is Wonderful

I won't vote for him again however

[seabeyond]

68. i would vote kerry enthusiastically n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

4. What I don't understand about Democrats is....

When attacked by Republicans, why do they go on the defensive and not the offensive? Go after the attackers and expose them for whatever there is to expose about them. I'm sure there's all kinds of crap about the accusers that could've been brought out in the public. I never understood why Democrats never did (or do) that. They merely sit there defending themselves, and this only makes the accusers look legitimate. Does what I am trying to say make any sense?

[sandnsea]

11. Cleland went to Crawford - long before Cindy

He went there with several vets to deliver a letter to Bush demanding he stop these smears. What I want to know is what is wrong with Democrats' memories that they can only remember what Republicans say and do.

[NoodleyAppendage]

5. WTF!!! Why didn't Kerry bring these out for the 2004 election!??

Is this simply a matter of Kerry not understanding how important these photos were to his public defense at the time? Or, as I suspect, did he just fail to see the threat of the Swiftboaters until it was too late and then he just folded on the issue?

One would think that if refuting the Swiftboaters during the 2004 election was a priority of Kerry's these photos would have been revealed at the time.

J

[ProSense]

8. Would this have made a difference? It's just more of the truth

which was out there in the reponses Kerry issued (see the videotape posted):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=358&topic_id=2555&mesg_id=2555


In fact, the wingnuts are blowing off these photos in the same way they blew off the Navy records.

People need to stop giving the Swift liars credit since they couldn't have made a difference without the MSM's compicity!

[Nictuku]

10. Might help in upcoming elections

For whatever reasons this information was not brought out in 2004, now is definitely the time. Discredit these types of smear campaigns. It can only help future smearees.

[SammyWinstonJack]

12. And what corporate owned news media would have shown them?

:shrug: CBS? ABC? NBC? MSNBC? CNN? :rofl: Fox? double :rofl: Yep, blame the victim! It's an American thing.

[Recursion]

77. Because he's a decent guy...

...who won't use war photos to his own political advantage?

Let's not forget there's a reason Kerry was the better man for this job than *. Even if that reason kept him from getting the job.

[Mass]

83. Some people here see nothing wrong in Bush and Rove.

They oppose their policy view, but not the way they operate. If Rove was a Democrat, they would be happy to have him lead a campaign the same way he does now.

Sad, but true.

[karynnj]

88. They didn't have them then

the story is that they are tracking down people, film, and photos etc that anyone there has. These were not Kerry's. Kerry was also out campaigning daily - he couldn't head a major investigation and run. Per the article, he expected an attack on his protesting - not on his highly decorated service.

[LittleClarkie]

112. Actually, it looks to me like he's had a researcher on this

looking for additional evidence. I wonder if these photos just surfaced. At the least maybe they didn't have these photos then. But they did have them when someone like Michele Malkin came after him again. They brought it up again, so here's Kerry countering it.

I support him fully on this.

[femmocrat]

6. Too little, too late.....

Like anyone but Kerry still cares.... unfortunately.....

[Mass]

7. You are right. I dont care because I never doubted it was lies.

The only people who could care are those who believed the lies, mostly Republicans.

[Libby2]

111. I care.

Someone besides Kerry does care.

[LittleClarkie]

113. Too trite, try again.

And I care. From the looks of this thread, so do a few others.

He's get nailed either way. There are people who think even now he should nail these people, and there are those like yourself who think "who gives a shit now".

It's not about anyone else now but him. No filter between him and the public. We know this pissed him off during the campaign, but Cahill and Shrum didn't want to respond, even to the point of having an aide "restrain the candidate."

I say good for him, if for no one else BUT him, let 'er rip!

[sandnsea]

9. And...

it won't matter because every Democrat has a better idea of what Kerry should have done and the next time a Democrat is smeared, they'll second-guess that person too and then criticize whatever the person did to beat off the smear. It's because Democrats are afraid to stand up for their candidates, not because the candidates don't stand up for themselves.

No matter how many times Kerry's response to these assholes gets posted, it still gets ignored because the popular thing to do is bash Kerry.

But Democrats aren't sheep-naaa, not at all.

[ray of light]

14. excellent point!

[Mass]

17. I agree.

[politicasista]

24. Bingo! n/t

[OzarkDem]

65. Dems stand up for their candidates if they stand up for themselves

How in the hell does a Dem candidate expect me, an individual, to help save his reputation?

They have to do it themselves. Voters don't want to see candidates let themselves get kicked around. They want to see candidates who stand up and fight when they're smeared.

[politicasista]

72. So they would have stood up for every Democrat except Kerry?

Despite the media bias, voter supression, and fear tactics? Facts please.

[OzarkDem]

78. I'm not sure I understand your point

I will explain my point, however -

It was incredibly demoralizing as a Kerry supporter and loyal Dem to have to go out and launch a defense on his behalf when he was not handling the situation in a timely and forceful way.

Its not up to the rank and file Dems to manage his PR campaign on this issue. They can't, its ineffective. He had to do it himself.

And it seems incredibly wrong and counterproductive to then go blame his loss on the folks in the field who were out there busting their asses for him.

Is that clear enough?

[Mass]

82. HE WAS HANDLING THE SITUATION. THE MEDIA DID NOT

REPORT.

It is terribly demoralizing for a Kerry supporter to see that some Democrats were so ready to dismiss him they were not ready to see what was happening. It is also very sad. Personnally, there are a lot of Democrats (not rank and file, leaders) that I have a real trouble defending after this campaign because they spend their time smearing Kerry or not campaigning for them.

Not surprisingly, some of their supporters are among the ones blasting Kerry for his campaign.

I will have a lot of trouble fighting for some of them in 2008 if they are the nominee, and some of their supporters here do not help, for sure.

[OzarkDem]

85. So please explain

how it was the grassroots Dems responsibility to handle this for him?

Don't get me wrong, I and most everyone else out here was working day and night for his campaign. I've never seen so many Dems in my area busting their asses for any other candidate before. But now its their fault that Kerry got smeared? Sorry, I don't get it.

[Mass]

86. I never made the claim. Read what I said.

and I dont think the person you answered too was making the claim either.

[sandnsea]

92. He did

You didn't. I guess you were one of those Democrats I was talking about in that other thread, one of the ones who stood on the sidelines throwing rocks instead of fighting back along with Max Cleland, Jim Rassmann, Judith Droz, William Rood, Wayne D. Langhofer, Jerry Leeds, and many more. Kerry, Rood and Droz were the commanders that day and they all supported Kerry, Droz through his wife Judith. Rassmann was the man pulled out of the water. How many times does a lie have to be called a lie until you can hear it??

[Maestro]

13. Good for Kerry!

I just wish he had fought these a$$holes more when it first happened.

[ray of light]

18. Well, I think if we were born with a crystal ball and we got

to see into the future so we could affect it when the time came, then I'm sure he would have and so on. But the most important thing is that these pictures are here now and that Kerry has made it damn clear that not one more soldier will be smeared by those boneheads without Kerry and others standing up to them.

In 04 the democrats were not standing up for Kerry yet in 05 Kerry stood up for Murtha!

[MrSlayer]

16. It's almost as if he wanted to lose.

What the fuck is with this guy letting the swiftie assholes railroad him like that with no response? He should have debunked those fools right off the bat and proved that they were lying instead of doing nothing. This brings me no joy or vindication, it just pisses me off. It seems that he was complicit in the "re-election" of this fucking retarded Chimp. Why else would he not respond?

[SammyWinstonJack]

19. What bullshit! Who would have covered his response? What

corporate owned media whore outlet would have covered Kerry's response to the Swift boat LIARS? Go ahead and blame the victim, after all, it's an American thing!

[sandnsea]

22. He responded

Stay tuned.

[SammyWinstonJack]

25. Kerry tried to respond to the swift boat LIARS during the 2004 campaign.

He was shut out! Thank you! Corporate owned whore media! I don't blame Kerry now for trying to set the record straight. And I am sure that he isn't doing it for political reasons. Good for him!

[MrSlayer]

26. Bullshit right back at you, it would have gotten coverage....

If he would have just stated flat out that these guys were liars and showed the proof. It's ludicrous to say that everyone would have ignored it. And he could have hammered the point over and over. "They are liars, see! They are liars! Just like the entire Bush administration. LIES LIES LIES! Here is the proof." You act as if no one even knew who the Democratic candidate was. He got plenty of face time and he never addressed this in a forceful or timely manner.

[SammyWinstonJack]

27. Bullshit! He tried to respond, guess you missed it! He got plenty of

face time? :rofl: Nice try!

[MrSlayer]

42. You really crack yourself up don't you?

Right, Kerry didn't get one second of face time. He had no coverage at all. There was a complete and total media blackout on him. Do you realize how foolish you sound? He fucked up by not taking these guys head on immediately after they started their shit.

[Mass]

30. Where you in Antartica during the campaign?

:eyes:

He did bring proofs. He had witnessed that were there and were saying he was not lying. The Navy said he was not lying.

But nobody was listening.

[MrSlayer]

37. Did he ever flat out call them liars?

Having people say he wasn't lying is not the same as calling out the douchebags attacking you. He also didn't release his full records until after the election. Why? They proved he was telling the truth.

BTW it's spelled Antarctica smarty pants.

[Mass]

40. Thanks for the spelling lesson, smarty pants.

This said, he had his full record on his website since early 2004 and having witnesses saying that somebody lies is better than saying it yourself.

[MrSlayer]

43. Why? You have to grab the bull by the horns.

He should have been on them the very second they came out with thier bullshit and he should have been making foreful statements himself. It's nice to have surrogates, everyone needs them but he also has to look like a leader. Not saying it himself looks weak.

[Old and In the Way]

53. The problem was the media. Every fricken' night they'd have a SBVT

person on a program telling their lies. Just for balance, of course. Didn't matter that none of them knew Kerry in VietNam and had no means to directly challenge the facts. The media could have called bullshit and ridiculed the whole smear campaign....but they didn't. They allowed these Republicans to smear Kerry and didn't bother to do a real investigation into AWOL's missing time in TANG.

What was Kerry going to do? Stop his campaign and devote his time to refuting the Smear Boaters? That wasn't very practical. I guess he assumed that the American people would consider the facts and make the right choice. Frankly, I think the majority did. As bad as the lies were, they were no match for programmable elections and corrupted Secretaries of States. 500,000 fewer people voted for Bush in 2000 than Gore. Given the 4 year disaster of this administration, why would I think he'd have become a more popular pResident?

[sandnsea]

20. And what did you do in Aug 2004???

List please. What did you do to educate people about these swift boat lies?

[MrSlayer]

28. I did everything I could to let people know this was bullshit.

I donated, I spoke out, I wrote letters to the editors of my hometown papers, I knocked on doors, I phone banked. And what did you do?

[sandnsea]

34. What resources did you use?

Please list the resources you used in your rebuttals.

[MrSlayer]

38. This link was very handy.

http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/

And again, you did what?

[sandnsea]

41. There are no sources there

So again, what did you tell people in August 2004?

[MrSlayer]

46. I already told you what I did.

You tell me what you did. And what does this have to do with me anyway? I fought for the guy even though he was one of the last people I wanted to have the nomination. Long term senators never win the Presidency.

[sandnsea]

49. I asked for sources

If you were out there fighting the swift boat fight, you ought to easily know what first hand sources you used to do it.

List them.

[MrSlayer]

51. I used the above link and the stuff from Kerry's website.

I'm not a professional researcher nor am I an expert on the swifties. I used the Navy records and whatever proof I could find on the net to debunk these pricks.

Again what has this to do with me?
And again, what did you do to help?

[sandnsea]

52. You've forgotten???

You don't remember what you told people when they asked about the swift boat lies? You don't remember what you wrote in letters? This was the doom of the campaign, and you don't remember what you had to say about it?

How did you rebut the swift boaters. Easy to answer, for anybody who actually did it.

It has to do with you because you chose to post shit in this thread, that's what.

Continue, I'm all ears as to all your efforts in fighting the swift boat lies. I've gotten no particulars so far.

[MrSlayer]

56. I remember exactly what I told people about the swiftie liars.

And what I wrote about it. Believe me or not as is your desire, it matters little to me. I know what I did and I have no reason to respond to you with everything I said. Who are you to me that I should? Particularly since you ask but won't answer yourself. Give and take, you know.

[sandnsea]

60. 5 responses - no details, hmmm

Either, you know that once you list the resources you used you will destroy your own claim that the Kerry campaign made no rebuttal.

Or, you simply launched attacks at the campaign because you were still mad that your candidate didn't win.

Which could it be, hmmm.

What did I do? Well, for one among a cazillion, I made sure every rebuttal that came out was posted at DU; so I know the information was here for anyone, if they cared to use it instead of sit on their high horse and shoot everything down. There was plenty of that going on around here at the time, although everybody suddenly forgets that they were the ones doing it.

[OzarkDem]

66. That's ridiculous

To expect grassroots Dems to launch a successful campaign against a well coordinated, multimillion dollar smear campaign? Get real.

[OzarkDem]

67. He should sue these people, even today

And every Dem who runs for office should remember the lesson Kerry learned - when the smear tactics begin, respond by immediately kicking the bastards in the teeth, then filing a lawsuit if necessary.

[Mass]

79. Nobody expects them to launch a campaign. Some of us

still think that they can support their candidate and that the media can do their job.

Apparently, the fact that the media does not do its job does not disturb you or others. Fine, but be sure that the same problem will happen whoever is the next Democratic nominee.

Kerry would not have been able to be heard by the media because they did not want to hear. Reporting lies as truth is not reporting. This is the sad truth of our media. Many, including people who do not want Kerry to run again, understand that. Some people here seem totally deaf. So sad for them.

IT IS NOT ABOUT KERRY. IT IS ABOUT OUR COMMON SURVIVAL.

So stop bashing Kerry and focus on the important thing. Feingold, Gore, Clark, or whoever you want to support cannot win with this media.

[politicasista]

80. Exactly n/t

[OzarkDem]

119. It would be wonderful if we could expect the media to do their job

But that's not going to happen any time soon, no matter how much a candidate or party appeals to their professionalism. To think it can be done is unrealistic and naive.

The news media has been bought and paid for, and it will take extensive media reform to make it operate fairly again. Until then, our candidates have to be ready fight them, buy their own ads, outmaneuver the opposition. Filing lawsuits should definitely be an option.

[sandnsea]

84. You don't talk to your neighbors??

What did you say during the swift boat attack in August 2004?

If you don't talk to your neighbors about politics, or write letters or whatever; that's fine. But to those who consistently come around and make these claims, and I know that they were here in 2004; then I want to know what they did in their neighborhoods when these attacks were happening. And if they say they rebutted them, then tell me what resources they used. Because many DUers did more attacking than rebutting in 2004, and that's a fact. So they either did rebut the attacks and know the rebuttals that were made; or they're flat full of shit.

That's my point. We are the grassroots, every time we open our mouths.

[OzarkDem]

117. All the time

But any candidate relying on me and others to use that technique to counter a multi-million dollar smear campaign needs to rethink his strategy.

Rapid response is key. Inoculation is even better.

[sandnsea]

120. So what did you say in 2004??

When people were fixated on what John Kerry did in Vietnam, what did you say, hmmm?? Easy question.

[Mass]

21. Because he did not think there were so many idiots in this country.

I am not talking about those who believed that (there were few that changed their votes because of that), but of those on our side that cannot get over it.

Think a little bit. Kerry is somebody who went to the defense of about every VietNam vet who was attacked during a campaign. He gets smeared, nearly nobody comes to his aide (except his own friends), most Dems say that he brought it on himself and stay silent. He is in the middle of a campaign that is more important than these slimebags and continue to do what he has to do.

Rather than admiring his courage, you smear him the same way the sleazebags did.

BTW, he responded. You were too busy to listen.

[MrSlayer]

31. I never heard him say flat out that they were lying.

I don't know that he ever uttered the word "liar" about any of the people against him including Chimpy.

[SammyWinstonJack]

35. Yeah, it's all Kerry's fault because he never "uttered" the word "liar"

:rofl: Nice try!

[MrSlayer]

39. Right, because no one would open their eyes at such pointed comments.

You have to be straight up and blunt when dealing with creeps like that. Using the word "liar" would have caused a stir and made people pay more attention. The people are simple, they need simple statements.

:hi:

[sandnsea]

47. Simple Statements

"Bush 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."

"We've had insults, we've had anger from Republicans. And I'll tell you why ... They can't talk about their record because it is a record of failure, so all they do is attack."

"Let me tell you what I think makes someone unfit for duty. Misleading our nation into war in Iraq makes you unfit to lead this country. Doing nothing while this nation loses millions of jobs makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting 45 million Americans go without healthcare for four years makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting the Saudi royal family control the price of oil for Americans makes you unfit to lead this country. Handing out billions of dollars in contracts without a bid to Halliburton while you're still on their payroll makes you unfit to lead this country.

That, my friends, is the record of George Bush and Dick Cheney, and that only begins to scratch the surface. This president has misled American workers and misled the American people."

The media response - "he's angry, he's got a thin skin, this guy".

[MrSlayer]

54. Yes, I remember that.

And it was good. But I also think he could have been stronger and more concise about it. It really doesn't matter now, I just feel you should use every weapon in your arsenal and he clearly didn't do that.

[sandnsea]

55. And still called "angry and thin skinned"

So what could the possible difference have been if he'd said something "more concise". It's the media, stupid and it would have been the media for Wes Clark too. In fact, I remember an awful lot of media whining around here over Clark during the primaries, how odd that what applies to one doesn't apply to another.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

98. Yes, essentially

I have observed throughout my life that Mr. and Ms. Average Voter like feisty candidates, and one aspect of being feisty is not letting someone LIE about you.

He did say, "I'm not lying." That's a DEFENSIVE statement, and to Mr. and Ms. Average Voter, that sounds like "Really, Mr. Wilson, I didn't hit that baseball through your window. Really, I didn't."

He did not go on the OFFENSIVE and call out the paid shills who were slandering him.

[ProSense]

23. FYI, Kerry did respond.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555

It seems there is a Swift liars left chapter!

[SammyWinstonJack]

29. Thank you for this!

:yourock:

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

44. The link is working now, and

did I say you? Why so defensive!

[MrSlayer]

48. Well you responded to my comment.

So I took it to mean you meant me. I apologize if that is not the case but you can see where I would have thought that.

[lumpy]

94. What is the reason for smearing Kerry???

Why the bitterness??? What does it accomplish??? What sort of person would blame Kerry for Bush getting reelected??? This thread is a most disgusting piece of crap ! Shame on you for doing your bit of 'swift-boating'. Disgusting.

[Kingofalldems]

33. Is there any way Kerry can find out if turdblossom

was involved in this?

[Catchawave]

69. From the ChiTrib, Aug '04....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-0408220343aug22,1,3849208.story?coll=chi-newsspecials-hed

Great article and it mentions a Rove connection sourcing the NYT.

[IndyOp]

50. Good Job - Setting the record straight about past events matters

TREMENDOUSLY! Forcing the media to see how stupidly biased they have been is good work - we need everyone lending a hand. Senator Kerry -> :applause:

Now...next...Senator Kerry...stolen elections...?

[me b zola]

64. I absolutely agree

"Setting the record straight about past events matters" :thumbsup:

There are some (but you'd never hear it in the media) who realize that they were duped on Iraq. People get angry when they realize that they have been manipulated and lied to. For every lie that they had bought & swallowed and are later shown the truth, they will be much more likely to not fall for smear campaigns that are bound to be brewing for '06 & '08.

[Old and In the Way]

57. Kerry should sue the shit out of these people. Take 'em to the cleaners.

Demand every penny of profit from that book (of course, he'd do the right thing and turn it over to some charity). And make a high profile admission of their lies and offer Kerry an apology as part of any settlement. If the RNC was involved, he ought to clean them out, too.

[alittlelark]

62. This evidence shows that Kerry spoke the truth.....

It does NOT show that he should run in '08. He is no fighter. He may be trying to regain his position... but he NEVER FOUGHT FOR US. The election results were obviously whacked out - he chose to concede. I would support the '70's Kerry, but not the corporatized '08 Kerry.


I want a FIGHTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ProSense]

74. Well nothing in your post is a fact!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1015710&mesg_id=1015710

http://www.stephaniemiller.com/bits/2006_0517_kerry.mp3

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1300211&mesg_id=1300211

[alittlelark]

87. sigh....

I flew to NM for Election Protection... met w/ hundreds who did the same. We organized, spread out, and GOT IT DONE.


The next morning my sister woke me out of my hangover sleep to tell me KERRY HAD CONCEEDED. Yeah.... KERRY HAD CONCEEDED.


Gore FOUGHT FOR the US in 2000 - he fought as far as the fight would take him (SCOTUS).


I want a FIGHTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!



KERRY LET ME DOWN. He's a good guy, but he will not FIGHT.

[sandnsea]

109. So where's your evidence

If you were in NM then you were on the front lines. Where's your evidence to convict Bush on election fraud??

[lumpy]

95. Well, son of a bitch, I've heard it all !

So Kerry is no fighter. He never fought for us. Well, Baby, you got your fighter. He is called George W. Bush. Let anyone who declares Kerry a coward, put on your fatigues and get your asses over there. Easy to sit on your computer chair and bitch. What else have any of done for your country except bitch?

[senseandsensibility]

71. Isn't it obvious now

that Kerry is running again? I think that's why he's doing this now. Sure, he wants to set the record straight. But timing is everything. BTW, I'm not a Kerry basher by any means. I supported him long before he was the nominee. But this issue hurt him.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

81. The problem is Democrats defend themselves and do not attack the Repugs

Why this is, I wish I knew.

[ohtransplant]

89. Yelling , screaming and vitriol aren't the only ways to fight.

I, for one, believe Kerry hasn't stopped fighting. From what I can see he hasn't stopped fighting since November '04. We could argue about concession until the cows come home. I can see both sides of the argument but one thing stick out to me - 18 months later there's still no smoking gun. Believe me, I was crushed too. I worked hard as many did and got my hopes up.

Did he run a perfect campaign? No - but I can see it on him - he's learned much from the experience.

Kerry has been, and still is, a leading Dem in fighting this administration tooth and nail. He fights for the party, local Dem candidates, our troops, small business people, children's medical care...I could go on. This man is the real deal.

Soft? A quitter? NO. Look at the record.

[Leopolds Ghost]

90. Save this Pic -- Proof of the NYTimes' "He Said They Said" Coverage

"Suggesting, he says, that the man was shot while approaching."

Reporters do not use this sort of language unless the facts are definitively in dispute and usually when describing the statements of a defendant in a criminal case!

[Clarkie1]

91. It's not about Vietnam, Mr. Kerry.

Let's move on to the 21st century, can we?

[Paradise]

93. the more afraid of you,

the more they will attack you,

and just remember what they did to kerry...

[rosesaylavee]

96. I love this man... he hasn't stopped fighting

the lies. I read elsewhere - didn't see it on this thread - that the Swiftboaters are still banging away at him as they have for the past 30 years. Its too easy to take pot shots with our most excellent 20/20 hindsight as to why these were not presented as a counter-argument before the election.

However, Kerry has continued to fight for us in the Senate and for the 2006 candidates. He has my respect and admiration as a decent human being first and as a Democratic leader second. The media is not stellar in its reporting - but if you look at his senate record before and after the election, you will see what I mean. IMHO, he is a great American.

[emulatorloo]

99. kick n/t

[Kansas Wyatt]

100. ABC's Nightline debunked the Not So Swift LIARS

Right before the 2004 Election. They had a journalist and camera team, in the same vicinity that Kerry earned his Silver Star, covering a different story. When they realized what they were close to, they checked to see if anyone there remembered what happened that day, during the Vietnam War. Vietnamese eye witnesses confirmed Kerry's version of events that day, and completely debunked the Not So Swift LIARS' smear campaign.

The head Not So Swift LIAR (O'Neil) was begging Ted Koppel and America to not believe communists in a closed society, because only he could have the accurate version of events. The piece of shit kept holding up and hiding behind his books pleading for America to accept them as the truth, and was ready to burst into tears, over the fact that he had just been exposed as a LIAR.

The "liberal" MSM dropped the revelation, right before the Election, like a ton of bricks. Unless you were fortunate enough to see that episode of Nightline, it disappeared immediately.

[kskiska]

107. I was just about to post that

Ted Koppel took his crew to Vietnam to find out once and for all what the real story was, and intended to air what he found, whichever way it turned out. It was a powerful program, showing interviews with villagers who remembered the incident where the man was shot by Kerry. They concurred with Kerry's story, not even knowing who he is, or that he was running for president. The story blew the Swift Boat Liars out of the water, but it got very little media attention afterwards.

[kentuck]

101. I 'm afraid the same attacks woud work again....

if this is the best they can come up with. They needed to discredit O'Neil, a Nixon stooge since 1971, and a long-time foe of John Kerry.

[ProSense]

102. Many people now know they're liars, and I don't expect the MSM

to do this again:

By the time the Swift Boat story had played out, CNN, chasing after ratings leader Fox News, found time to mention the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth–hereafter, Swifties–in nearly 300 separate news segments, while more than one hundred New York Times articles and columns made mention of the Swifties. And during one overheated 12-day span in late August, the Washington Post mentioned the Swifties in page-one stories on Aug. 19, 20, 21 (two separate articles), 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. It was a media monsoon that washed away Kerry’s momentum coming out of the Democratic convention.

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2880

They got a lot of free media!

[kentuck]

103. But they got a lot of free media because...

they were not challenged. And they were waving big bucks in front of the television networks. I still fear there is a lesson that the Democrats still haven't learned from this: Attacks cannot go unchallenged.

[ProSense]

105. That' not the case!

They were challenged. See this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1300211&mesg_id=1300211

From the link and to this point, the media gave free coverage when they should have been reporting the facts.

Emphasis added. Look, here's the thing. To the extent that the Swift Boat Liars were effective -- and that's in dispute -- it wasn't just because of their spending on ads. It was because the media amplified those charges for days and days, if not weeks, without examining them critically. When the press did get around to debunking the charges whatever damage there was had already been done. The media tried to shift blame for this to Kerry by arguing that he'd failed to respond aggressively. But here's the point: The press shouldn't have had to wait for Kerry to start hitting back before it started to report critically on what the Swift Boat Liars were saying. The simple fact that the media was amplifying the charges should alone have obligated them to take a critical look at them -- immediately.

One of the key themes of this blog will be that a big problem with political reporting today is that its practitioners simply refuse to acknowledge their own role in shaping public perceptions. Thus it is that this Times piece can blithely observe that "the charges stuck" as if this happened by magic, when in fact the real reason this happened is that the media simply failed to be skeptical and aggressive at an absolutely critical moment. That failure, of course, is one of the reasons that Kerry is still a Senator -- and is still battling the Swifties today.

[joefree1]

106. Never again

We need to sink these mofos next time around. Good for Mr. Kerry.

[Joey Liberal]

110. The Swift Boat Morons were lying the whole time. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

114. Better late than never...

but not by much.

[Supersedeas]

115. another Rovian political dirty trick exposed too late??

[ginnyinWI]

116. Does anybody know of a poll taken Aug-Oct 2004

which addresses the Swiftie issue? How many people believed them, and did it actually affect the way they voted? Unless there is data to support it, all of this is just speculation.

Maybe it did affect voters, but maybe it was something else, like the OBL tape that they released a few days before the election--even though they had it well before then. And whether it really was OBL is another whole subject for speculation.

Or it could have been the obvious bias in the media pre-election: both CNN and MSNBC were decidedly skewed toward Bushie coverage.And that's not even mentioning FOX, which goes without saying.

Or it could have been LBJ--he screwed up when he invaded Vietnam, ever after making people think that Dems can't handle foreign affairs, and especially wars. Nevermind that Clinton did ok--stereotypes die hard. There was also that idea that you "don't change horses mid-stream"--that it would hurt the war to change presidents.

It could also have been partly those wedge issues. There are people who think that if they vote for any pro-choice candidate, they are committing a sin against God.

I'm just trying to point out that it isn't as simple as it looks on first impression.