Tuesday, August 31, 2004
SwiftVets' fourth ad focuses on medals over the fence
The fourth SwiftVets ad is out (hat-tip PrestoPundit). It focuses on John Kerry's throwing his own/someone's medals/ribbons over a Capitol fence during antiwar demonstrations in 1971. Actually, the ad ignores Kerry's own conflicting stories over whether it was his medals, or his ribbons, or someone else's medals, or some combination that he threw over the fence. Instead, it has a video clip from Kerry saying on some TV interview ("Meet the Press"?) from November 6, 1971:
[We (?) — garbled] renounced the symbols this country gives .... And that was the medals themselves .... I gave back — I can't remember — six, seven, eight, nine ...."
I think the ad will be effective. Some sizeable portion of the voting population has no clue that Kerry threw away either his medals or his corresponding service ribbons (it really doesn't matter which) — but they know Kerry has made a big deal out of those commendations throughout his campaign. This ad is focused to educate those folks and — aided by press coverage about it, including the likely whining from the Kerry campaign in response — it will succeed.
Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to SwiftVets' fourth ad focuses on medals over the fence and sent a trackback ping are listed here:
(1) Cap'n DOC made the following comment | Aug 31, 2004 6:56:14 AM | Permalink
I have not bothered to look for, nor have I seen any of the ads. I don't have cable in my home, and I won't waste my bandwidth playing them from the web. I lived all of this once. I swallowed my pride in the uniform in shame after the Kerry and VVAW antics, and went about the work of building a business, a home and a family.
Kerry had to come along and boast about his 'service' and reopen a lot of wounds with men and women to which he did a great diservice in word and deed.
This ad can't be any more or less damning than the first three.
(2) MeTooThen made the following comment | Aug 31, 2004 9:06:11 AM | Permalink
Here is a link regarding the interview you mention in your post.
The interview was from a Washington, D.C., news program on WRC-TV called Viewpoints dated, Nov. 6, 1971.
The Internet is a amazing thing, no?
(3) Cap'n DOC made the following comment | Aug 31, 2004 9:29:06 AM | Permalink
It should have been "to WHOM he did a great disservice" in my last comment.
I hadn't had my coffee yet.
(4) George made the following comment | Aug 31, 2004 9:49:47 AM | Permalink
Kerry was more specific about actually giving
back HIS medals in a different part of that
interview. Here's a good summary --
(5) Jumbo made the following comment | Aug 31, 2004 10:13:48 AM | Permalink
I'm almost afraid to ask, since it seems so creepy, but who is the long-faced helmeted "New Soldier" doing some guerilla theater and directing a "massacre" as depicted in the middle photo of the top two rows here?: link
These are purportedly from Kerry's "New Soldiier" book which in the last couple of years he has tried mightily to buy up.Somebody with better eyes needs to tell me that's not him. I truly hope it's not; it's getting to be embarrassingly easy to hoist Lt (jg) Kerry on his own petard.
(6) jag made the following comment | Aug 31, 2004 12:37:34 PM | Permalink
If you watch the video of Kerry talking about his medals it is hard NOT to come to the conclusion he's lying.
I mean he stumbles over the number and mumbles his response. I'd submit that someone who makes such an extreme gesture is going to have it....."seared" into their memory. They wouldn't say:
"I gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine.
You recieved the Bronze, Silver and 3 PHs,?
Well above that I gave back my others."
Looking at this again, it clearly looks like he was lying. Oh, and you don't remember the EXACT number? He got five medals. How tough is that to remember within such a short period of time? And what were the others? Numbers six through nine? The interviewer had no clue he might have meant ribbons, she was asking about medals.
Kerry bet none of this stuff would ever see the light of day, that his duplicity was safely locked up in some dark archives.
He bet wrong then and it is amazingly arrogant or stupid for him to base his entire candidacy on such a complete fraud....his "heroic" service record. Then again, what else did he have to sell?
(7) dennisw made the following comment | Aug 31, 2004 1:19:46 PM | Permalink
This one is effective. There's nothing to argue about since those are John Kerry's words in his own voice.
(8) J Murphy made the following comment | Aug 31, 2004 1:37:18 PM | Permalink
Kerry would have had several other ribbons or medals: the National Defense Ribbon, which is given to all active duty service members during time of conflict; at least one Vietnam service ribbon (I've forgotten the proper term), and perhaps campaign ribbons. I seem to remember seeing him wearing his ribbons during his VVAW days, and he had at least three rows of three ribbons, perhaps more.
I think he was trying to impress us that he was so highly decorated he couldn't remember the number, or that they were so unimportant he couldn't be bothered to remember just how many he received.
(9) George made the following comment | Aug 31, 2004 2:19:36 PM | Permalink
The part about "6, 7, 8, 9 medals" wasn't a lie.
He had also thrown back medals for some others
who (I'm guessing) couldn't be there that day.
The discrepancy comes when he speaks about HIS
medals. When asked if he thew away his
Bronze Star, Silver Star and three Purple
Hearts, he said, "Well, and above that, [I]
gave back the others."
Recently, however, he has denied that. Even
Kerry's own web site calls it "right-wing fiction" link.
He apparently did not think that this interview
would surface to show how he has contradicted
even his own statements.
(10) M. Simon made the following comment | Aug 31, 2004 4:24:25 PM | Permalink
Here is a link to "New Soldier" and some other stuff.
Steal this sig:
George Bush never called me “baby killer”.
There is a big difference between William Calley and John Kerry. William Calley is a proven war criminal. For John Kerry we only have his word as an officer and a gentleman.
(11) Steel Turman made the following comment | Aug 31, 2004 4:44:17 PM | Permalink
The new ad is even more effective. The way it
is constructed ... even if you are in another
room the backgound music compells to pay heed.
The 1st half is in color and the music benign.
Then the screen goes B&W and music becomes
very dischordant and gating.
The ad is better suited for the audience that
really doesn't care or pay attention.
And SBVFT and everyone else had better be
tossin' some grenades 'cause I've seen
a couple of the new moveon ads and they
are way over the top and VERY effective.
(12) Cap'n DOC made the following comment | Aug 31, 2004 5:20:43 PM | Permalink
Steve Turman Links, please. I'm not the kinda guy who goes browsing for BadNews.
I like the fact that they ignored the controversy over whether Kerry threw medals or ribbons. Let Kerry's flacks and defenders start explaining that he was proud of the medals but he considered the ribbons the same thing as the medals so he threw those and some medals of a WWII veteran. Let them explain Kerry's nuance in so doing.
(14) dave made the following comment | Aug 31, 2004 10:35:39 PM | Permalink
The brilliance of this is that for the past month, Kerry and the entire Dem party have said, "How dare you question something so sacred as the medals a hero won in battle". They've basically said the worst thing you can do is question someone's Purple Heart.
Now they remind everyone that Kerry, in his own voice, chucked (or pretended to chuck) them over a fence for cheap political theatre.
These Swiftees are far from stupid.
(15) Joe Baby made the following comment | Aug 31, 2004 10:44:34 PM | Permalink
I think Kerry is a long-jawed sack of monkey dung, but at some point the Swifties overstay their welcome. Beware of a backlash coming.
(16) Dacotti made the following comment | Aug 31, 2004 10:58:26 PM | Permalink
I've got to wonder if this isn't what the big meeting Kerry had with all the press big-wigs last winter was all about: Getting them to agree not to bring any of this stuff up. They just didn't count on the internet and the Swiftvets. If there were no other reason not to vote for Kerry, his grand misscalculation on the public's interest or memory about his anti-war antics is very telling. Anybody this incompetent should NEVER have the keys to our nuclear arsenal.
(17) jackmehoff made the following comment | Aug 31, 2004 11:01:00 PM | Permalink
There is a perfectly logical reason why he can't remember the number of medals/ribbons he tossed over the fence... HE WAS STONED!
(18) FourPeat made the following comment | Aug 31, 2004 11:58:16 PM | Permalink
The point isn't really the quantity of medals, but rather that he threw away the honors of this country. Yes, he got bronze (Jay Leno: What? Is that third place?), silver, and purple hearts; but he probably also received certain combat awards for participating in the Vietnam theater, and whatever.
(19) ed made the following comment | Sep 1, 2004 12:05:13 AM | Permalink
" And SBVFT and everyone else had better be
tossin' some grenades 'cause I've seen
a couple of the new moveon ads and they
are way over the top and VERY effective."
It's ALL good!
My guess is that a majority of people have heard of the SwiftVet campaign, but don't really know much about it. MoveOn.org is going to do the same thing that Kerry did and guarantee massive coverage.
It's viral campaigning.
The more it's discussed, the more people will seek it out on the internet.
The more people see it, the more they will discuss it.
The more people get involved, the more money goes into the SwiftVet's wallet.
The more money in the wallet, more ads. More ads, more viewers.
More viewers, more really pissed off MoveOn.org ads.
Let's remember that the SwiftVets weren't really an impact until Kerry opened his big mouth. Something like this, a runaway iterative process, is like a virtual freight train.
And Kerry's on the tracks, looking at the headlights.
(20) ed made the following comment | Sep 1, 2004 12:16:30 AM | Permalink
Ok. Here's a thing that has me a bit confused. I've posted it once before, not sure where though. And I haven't gotten much of an answer. So I hope someone can pull through for me.
Why did Kerry selected John Edwards???
1. Kerry is running on a platform that having served at all in the military isn't good enough. That you had to have volunteered for Vietnam.
Well John Edwards was born in 1953, and turned 18 in 1971. He didn't volunteer. He didn't join the ROTC. He has never served in any branch of the military a day in his life.
So how can Kerry make the argument that he's the best vice-president?
2. Kerry's platform is rabidly pro-abortion. The platform essentially demands abortion at will, and at any time during the pregancy and for anyone, regardless of age.
John Edwards made his name, career and fortune suing obstreticians for malpractice because they weren't as attentive and proactive in the fetuses interests as they should have been. In short he sued doctors for not performing c-sections early enough to prevent autism, even though the rationale behind these lawsuits is considered to be junk science.
So the platform is that fetuses have no rights and can be destroyed at will with no problems. His career is based on defending the rights of fetuses.
Does anyone else see a couple of very large rhetorical clubs with which to beat John Edwards with?
(21) edith made the following comment | Sep 1, 2004 1:57:36 AM | Permalink
The Kerry video is on the C-Span site, search for "1971 interview," or go to the link on InstaPundit from a few days ago.
(22) John Damon made the following comment | Sep 1, 2004 2:22:33 AM | Permalink
KERRY BEAT THE SYSTEM (with the help of the system, NYT etc)
It is a great mistake and a fraudulent one at that to buy into/accept/reason that somehow because Kerry went to Viet Nam, (in spite of whatever happened during his four month "visit")---that---that in itself somehow makes him honorable, noble, ----ad nauseum---an effort calculated by himself and his supporting media to give him some kind of recognition of his "service" thus transposing him into "war hero status". Never mind that he lied about it before/during/after!---and the "hero" is purely fictional, a perverted calculation, suspiciously based on and influenced by the equally dubious film, Apocalypse Now. Much to Hollywood's delight, the Kerry/Sheen character is the central casting hero being foisted upon the masses with no basis in fact, just slick Hollywood pretense all under the welcoming guise of the media, ---both entities--- driven by a hatred of and desire to depose, President Bush.
In an effort to want to put VN behind us, there is too great of rush to sweep under the rug the facts and to gloss over Kerry's motives, simply give him the benefit of the doubt and agree that his "service" was noble, something to be proud of.
If Kerry had genuinely volunteered to go to VN, put his life in some sort of danger via that action and then became disillusioned with the war---that would be one thing.
BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED
Kerry is a premeditated, scheming opportunist---has been all his life and continues the ploy with his carefully engineered, central casting of "Kerry, the war hero, Kerry the man's man" and all that type of Hollywood fluff.
We have all seen Kerry in our every day lives. Remember back to your school days. Kerry was/is the "brown-noser", "apple polisher", "suck-ass", the loser always trying to take credit for someone else's achievements, the rodent who would stab anyone in the back to get notice, attention, credit. Back before "girlie-man" became popular, Kerry was what was then known as a sissy, a pansy, he was and is effeminate and his big mouth has always gotten him in trouble and he would run to others for protection, "to make it all right". Any time a man goes to so much trouble to demonstrate/prove he is a man, it is always because, deep down, he has doubts himself of his manhood---look at Kerry's limp wrist, the way he held the Philly hoagie, his one bounce pitch, most women are more manly than this clown. His "manhood" is as feigned as his Viet Nam heroics!
Kerry is Sgt Bilko. Kerry is the athlete who "enhances" his lacking ability with performance drugs to win. The Kerry twisted persona can justify anything to win---to him it matters not how he wins, only that he wins, he will crush anything that gets in his way, not from his own strength and courage, but using money from his sugar mamma to buy what he can't achieve on his own.
Kerry is the personification of "Catch 22". Kerry is a "user", ---wives, people, fantasies, ever upward climbing. How to get ahead in business without even trying, or, more personalized in Kerry's case, how to steal an election through fraud and deceit. And watch, if and when he loses, he will not go down as easy as Algore. Kerry will fight to contest the outcome, even if it is a 50 State sweep for the President,--- already Kerry has the mechanism in place to undo the election results, teams of lawyers throughout the U.S. ready to pounce, U.N. observers to make sure a "fair" election takes place(translation, one that delivers the Presidency to Kerry).
What Kerry actually did in Viet Nam was realize he could improve his credentials for eventually gaining the White House as his hero JFK before him did, by creating "another" PT109 episode. Kerry tried to avoid actual service, asking for deferments etc, but when it become inevitable that he should go, he then looked around for the "safest" way to create "Kerry the war hero". Initially, by volunteering for Naval duty, his thinking was he could stay out of harm's way by remaining off shore in a big naval vessel, which he did for a while. But being another face in the crowd on a large Navy vessel cramped his style, made it almost impossible to dream up ways to put in for phony medals, kept him under too much scrutiny to where he couldn't creat his destined "hero" image. Then, it occurred to him that piloting a swift boat could be used to create even more of an appearance of "combat" while not exposing himself to any real danger, at the time he applied, the swift boats were not involved or even close to any of the real fighting and he was driven by his delusion of grandeur as the rightful heir to JFK, PT 109, and ascendancy to the Presidency---and besides, he would have lots of time and opportunities to make his "home movies".
Now this is the real motive why Kerry was there in the first place. And the fact that he took along his "brownie" and had himself filmed in staged combat settings should be painfully awakening to any casual observer--- other than those who wish not to see,---ie the mainstream media who wishes Bush out, Kerry in AT ANY PRICE! (There are none so blind as those who will not see). Think about it if you find this somewhat extreme---what other military service personnel brought along (which shows premeditation) filming capability and then went to the trouble to "stage" combat sequences???---For what reason???? And this cold, calculated effort has significant basis to be workable as these purveyors of history "re-write" are counting on the average arm chair American to accept this fiction as fact because---"there it is on T.V., in film, if it is on T.V. and the talking heads say it is real, then by gosh, it must be real, it must be what really happened".
So, in essence, we have a phony cartoon character, much like Bubba, who goes to VN simply to create credentials for himself, not out of patriotic belief in his country or the war itself,--- instead we have the pitiful, disgusting charade that is now being spun by the mouthpiece of the "donks" and Kerry himself, ranting: "never mind the fine details of what actually happened, at least he volunteered, at least he was there"---what does it really matter if he was in or near Cambodia, at least he was in VN.
It matters because a lie is a lie.
Kerry's "service" in VN and to our country was no different than if Michael Moore went today to Iraq to film a twisted phony version of U.S. aggression in Iraq and in doing so, returned as a "veteran" who had put his life at risk in "service" to his country. There is no difference between these two, the ketchup/pickle king and the fat slob Moore. They both would--- and have--- sold their country out in a flat minute for any self-seeking, self-promoting, self-aggrandizement goal they felt they could gain by their fraudulent "service" to gain their perverted ends--- no matter what the cost, what the lie, who has to be hurt. In their twisted philosophy, the end result justifies the means used to achieve it.
To not really examine the true motive of Kerry's "service" and to give him a pass on all this by saying that at least he volunteered, he was there, he did sustain "some kind of injury", (even if it was self inflicted) is to sugar coat the fraud and play into his game plan of reaching the White House, where, in his twisted, fantasy mind, he believes he rightfully belongs and he is counting on "coach potato America" to apathetically accept his fraud due to the credential of Hollywood and the Media. If Streisand, perky Katie, Dan and all the rest of them say it is so, then it must be so!
Kerry's war "hero" status cannot stand up to any serious scrutiny, witness the cracks since the book, Unfit for Command, Kerry's refusal to release pertinent military records (until he gets them laundered) and the recent statement by Secretary of the Navy, Lehman, that the document supposedly carrying his signature for Kerry's Silver Star is FALSE. Kerry has wrapped himself as worthy due to his 4 months in Viet Nam, he cannot stand on his 20 undistinguished, practically useless years in the Senate. The man has no accomplishment in life other than living off of other men's money inherited by their widows who Kerry has sucked up to.
There is so much in the Kerry convoluted smoking gun that a fair and unbiased press would be all over his dillusions/falsehoods with a microscope, but no, the mainstream media refuses and has accepted the fictional Kerry farce because they want Bush defeated more than they want the truth. Rather than investigate Kerry, the mainstream media, ie the New York Times chooses to attack those who expose Kerry for the fraud that he is. Kerry is their candidate and they will ignore, look the other way, even fabricate for Kerry, whatever it takes to get "their" man in.
We, the American people cannot let this happen. No one elected perky Katie, Dan, Peter, Tom, George Soros, the NYT---the list goes on, but these people have more power than anyone else simply because of their celebrity status and Soros's money. If the next Presidential election is stolen/bought by the likes of these self appointed cronies of the fourth estate, America will lose her greatness, the word must go out to expose what is happening and people, regular people must take back our country before it is too late and get everyone possible involved in exposing this sham, the phony Kerry, the disgrace that has become the media, the threat to our country to be defeated from within.
John, please, tell us what you really think.
I don't think we have to "take back" our country as much as simply expose and defeat fabulists like Kerry. It's going pretty well, so no need to get apoplectic.
(24) Todd made the following comment | Sep 1, 2004 1:31:00 PM | Permalink
Ed, with regard to your observation about John Edwards' lack of military service, I had the same question about a week ago, which I e-mailed to Jim Geraghty at Kerry Spot. Apparently, Jim wasn't too impressed with my reasoning.
Nevertheless, I see your point and agree with it. If military service is a sine qua non of successful Presidential leadership in the present era (something that Kerry has argued repeatedly in so many words), then how can he, in good conscience, put Edwards on the ticket?
Another question: How did Edwards avoid military service? Deferment? High lottery number? Not eligible? I e-mailed the Kerry-Edwards campaign this question and received a litany of Kerry-Edwards nonsense on veterans' affairs.
In any event, if John Edwards received a deferment (and I could find nothing in his bio that indicated he did or did not), then why are Democrats slaming various Republicans, including Dick Cheney, for receiving deferments?
(25) Pat made the following comment | Sep 11, 2004 11:16:04 PM | Permalink
New here. Have a question & don't know if it has been addressed before regarding the medals. I see where you can buy medals online at different websites. How do these medals compare to the originals? Has anyone seen a duplicate & can you tell the difference if it was mounted on the wall & not able to hold it?Thanks.
PS-Thought the new ad is very effective.
Article on Edward's service...
(27) Pat made the following comment | Sep 11, 2004 11:23:22 PM | Permalink
The comments to this entry are closed.