Posted on 08/19/2004 5:26:39 AM PDT by crushkerry
Last week, Crushkerry.com broke a major story about the Democrat National Committee’s distribution of so-called “Brown Books,” unofficial hatchet-job biographies about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
According to a source at the DNC, the “Brown Books” contain damaging military records, medical and psychiatric records, credit records, divorce records and more. You know … all the things we’re entitled to know about John Kerry, but he won’t tell us.
In our story we predicted a campaign of character assassination would commence at around the same time the book Unfit for Command would be released in an orchestrated attempt to discredit its authors. Well, the book debuts this week. And wouldn’t you know it … the Washington Post has a story about one of the Swiftee’s that is … um … less than flattering:
But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."
We spoke to two campaign opposition research experts who explained how this works. One campaign will often compile a research package on the opponent and share it – or portions of it – with the press. Once learning what to look for, the press will then file their own Freedom of Information Act request for specific documents, even though they already know what they’re looking for and already have the supporting documentation. They file the request for cosmetic reasons. One “oppo research” guy assured us there is almost no way the Washington Post would have received such a prompt response to their FOIA request unless they already had the damaging information and knew exactly what to request.
So it is reasonable to assume the Washington Post had already been tipped off about Thurlow’s after-action report regarding the incident for which he received a Bronze Star. Tipped off, it is even more reasonable to assume, by the Democrat National Committee and its “Brown Book.” Worse still, one opposition research expert told us it is common to use a “slow drip” technique to discredit your opponent over a long period of time. So we should expect more of this from the Post and other pro-Kerry media venues.
We hope the Washington Post is proud of themselves. In this one story they have already demonstrated more interest and scrutiny in Larry Thurlow’s military records than in John Kerry’s. Oh, yeah … and John Kerry is the candidate for President of the United States.
We wonder if the Post has made the same requests for all the Kerry military records. As to the substance of this story, a few questions remain. First, were the details that made up the information in the citation culled from an "after-action" report? And if so, who wrote it? Thurlow claims that some of that info may have come from Kerry. The book does make allegations that Kerry wasn't exactly truthful in such reports. Hell, he's even contradicted his own diary. Thurlow to his credit now says that he would consider the award "fraudulent" if it was given for being under fire, rather than for for going towards a mined boat. The Swift Boat Vets should now ensure that they all have released their own military records, just to show they, unlike Kerry, are not hiding anything.
Further, notice how in the story they refer to Thurlow as a "registered Republican" and an "oil industry worker from Texas". All very important stuff right? Don't you think that appearing in the commercial and being involved in the group is enough to show he's against Kerry?
For shame.
Ping
Shame, indeed!
Did anyone think the Dems would not go after anything and everything about the Swifties who are against Kerry?
Brown Books - to be followed by brown shirts.
The Washington Post… serving America's enemies since 19__.
Interesting!
Wonder who slipped the "intel" to the post about whom to go after first.
Must be moles, deep in the pit of "official" WDC.
This brings back memories of all .ell breaking out at the State Department when President Bush 41 was running against Clinton and the accusation was made that somebody was checking out bjclinton's "passport" status.
As long as JFKerry has been in office, his official records probably have been sanitized.
We spoke to two campaign opposition research experts who explained how this works. One campaign will often compile a research package on the opponent and share it – or portions of it – with the press. Once learning what to look for, the press will then file their own Freedom of Information Act request for specific documents, even though they already know what they're looking for and already have the supporting documentation
Doesn't Thurlow have a creditability problem? As much as I hope Kerry is proven to exaggerate his war deeds, It certainly help if one of his accusers is exxagerating also.
I hope so, even if it does look to be already used.
How about disingenuous and slander and just plain lies of omission. The press needs to be shot. Every one of them.
So, the DNC is release "Brown Books", which are "research" files on each of the Swift Vets last week and just this morning, the WashPost has some major story on one of the SwiftVets (Thurlow).
Hmmm.
Washington COMpost Ping.
A good hour long "Infomercial" on say, the Monday night before the first NFL game to document everything Kerry should take care of it.
The politics of personal destruction campaign has begun in the compliant media. Crush, discredit, and destroy Kerry's opponents. Its like the Borg: "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated." And when it comes to dealing with the Democrats' enemies, the mainstream media is relentless in its mission.
We better hope the Kerry people don't have an ace up their sleeve -- what I'm afraid of is they'll conjure up "proof" that Bush lied about his service in the National Guard. Opinion polling now indicates that the war is the most important issue on voters' minds and that 50% of the public thinks the war is a mistake. If the public decides Bush is not honest (as piles of Bush-bashing books are braying), Bush is toast.
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.