Posted on 08/10/2004 6:26:46 AM PDT by Toonces T. Cat
Having viewed the exchange between David Corn and Chris Horner this morning on Fox, I have decided to actively fight this argument that..."The Swiftboat Vets were not there."...that Corn and the other MSM wankers keep putting out. Chris Horner did his best to refute Corn, but was shouted down nonetheless.
As a result, I have begun sending emails to as many media sources as possible pointing out the following:
1.) Most of the talking heads commenting on the Swiftboat Vets claims have not been in the military and have no idea what they are talking about.
2.) Most of them are either lawyers or journalists or both.
3.) For the lawyers the obvious questions are,
(a) "Have you ever been in a courtroom with other lawyers?" (It's not unthinkable that close to 100% of them have been at one time or another.)
(b) "Could you comment on their behavior in that courtroom based upon your own personal observations?"
(c) "Were all of those lawyers members of your law firm?"
For journalists a press conference would serve the same purpose. The point being that, lacking any understanding of combat tactics and procedures, these people seem to believe that if someone was not a member of Lurch's crew, then they are not qualified to comment on the events they actually witnessed. They need to have an analogy stuffed in their faces that they can relate to and this one seems to fit the bill.
The "They were not there." misconception they are spinning needs to be dispelled as quickly as possible.
-Toonces
Horner's best rebuttle to Corn, which was possibly unheard by many because of the overtalk was Horner pointing out that these vets are on Kerry's home movies! How did they get in the film if they were not there?
I am glad to hear that from you as I could not hear it over Corn's rants.
-Toonces
Good analogy!
Well, where were they?
I had to do this Friday night at a dinner with some friends. One friend was saying "They weren't on the boat" her husband and I both said "They were right there in other boats, viewing what was going on"
She said "I can't believe G Bush would do this ad " I said "He didn't, they are acting independently"
SHe said "John Kerry volunteered and went, that says a lot and they shouldn't say anything bad about him because of that" I said "Do they not have just as much of a right to speak, as they too were there?"
She said "This shouldn't be an issue for the Presidential race" I said "Kerry brought it up himself. They told him not to use the picture, and he did. He spent more time talking about Vietnam and his band of brothers at the convention than he did his senate record. This is what he's chosen to campaign on, and it has come back to bite him in the a$$."
She was frustrated by the end of dinner. And if she said one more time "I'm an independant. I don't vote for either party exclusively" I was going to scream!
The History Channel had a excellent show on 'Nam River Boats last night. I was so absorbed in it that I forgot to alert the FR board. Hopefully it will run again. It covered the period from the mid 60s to about 1970. See it if you can...
At the end of the pathetic exchange, Corn seemed to lose it by throwing in GWB's National Guard Service, as was done by Alan Colmes last night. Both gents agree that GWB had nothing to do with the ad yet continue to inject his service versus Kerry's 4 month stint into every debate. Instead of researching the Swift Boat Vets claims, they desperately cling to their words "served with John Kerry" to mean they were in the same boat and dismiss them all as liars. Your analogies sum it up nicely.
For those who point out that There is a Republican fund raiser involved. You can also point out that the distributor of Maggot Moore's smear piece is a contributor to the Dem's see below.
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?txtName=weinstein&NumOfThou=0&txt2004=Y
I read on another thread what I think is the perfect response to this illogic. If someone sees a car accident, would you ignore their testimony because they were not in the car.
I think Phantom Lord makes an excellent point. Yours is good, but requires too much time. I think another great response is: "If these men were good enough to have their photograph featured in a campaign ad touting Kerry's war service, they are good enough to offer their opinions on his fitness to lead."
Or the probationary fireman from another engine company on the same fire...
Or the dangerous twit that wants to ride with the pack, but obviously lacks some basic riding skills...
You don't have to be on the boat to see what the commander is up to, just close enough to be affected...
When Kerry volunteered for Swift boat duty, the Swifties were tasked with offshore interdiction of arms and materiel. Little contact with VC or NVA ground forces.
By the time he got a command, the mission had changed. The PBRs were going farther upriver and into the canals and the swifts were also going farther upriver, (though not as far as the shallower draft PBRs) with a considerably higher likelihood of hostile contact.
The change was to attempt to interdict the flow of arms and personnel down the Mekong and other rivers from the North, and not to just interdict items coming into the Delta from the sea.
IMHO, he wanted to get his command ticket punched, but wanted out ASAP after the mission changed and the probability of hostile contact became more of a certaiinty.
All of this is good ammunition for rebuttal, but what is even more heartening is that the Dems are so scared by this.
FYI..what's going to do in Kerry are his statements on being in Cambodia..these are obvious lies, and since he can't refute them, the logical conclusion will be to question all his other statements and actions...
Would you buy a used Camelot from John Kerry?
No wonder they are freaking, the plan not only isn't working, it is backfiring.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.