Replies

August 05, 2004
John Kerry Fires Back at SwiftVets
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/spectrum/archives/000466.html

In response to an advertising campaign that is being circulated by the new, well-funded group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, John Kerry's attorneys have submitted letters to stations that may carry the ad.

Within the letter, Kerry's team states that the men within the ad are falsely implying that they served along side John Kerry despite the fact that none of the men served as crew members on either of John Kerry's patrol boats. Additionally, they state that the doctor who accuses Kerry of taking a Purple Heart for a "band-aid" wound had not treated Kerry after the firefight that led to the Purple Heart as the SwiftVets claim. If true, this could be damning to the SwiftVets as it would entirely undermine their credibility.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is backed by a top Bush supporter from Houston, Texas and is coordinated by a former Reagan administration staffer whose husband ran for lieutenant governor in Texas alongside George W. Bush.

The White House has refused to denounce the ads despite the urging of John McCain.

One of SwiftVets main members, John O'Neill, has a long standing feud against John Kerry. O'Neill was tapped by President Nixon in the 1970's to run a group counter to Vietnam Veterans Against the War of which John Kerry was a member.

If Swift Boat Veterans for Truth turns out to completely lack credibility, this entire chapter would go down in history as one of the dirtiest campaign tricks in modern politics.

Within the letter, Kerry's team states that the men within the ad are falsely implying that they served along side John Kerry despite the fact that none of the men served as crew members on either of John Kerry's patrol boats.

This is going to be THE Dem/Lib line of attack against the Swift vets. There heros, they served their country well, but they're lying about "serving" with John Kerry because they weren't on their boat.

The Dems knew this was coming, so they've chosen their language and their line of attack very carefully and probably have polling and focus-group data showing that it's effective with the general public. Their goal is to get the Swift vets to say "no" when pressed on whether they were on the same boat ask Kerry. Susan Estrich clearly demonstrated this last night during the H&C interview.

What the Swift vets need is an effective rebuttal and counter-attack that allows them to make their points while avoiding having to say "no" on the "you weren't on the SAME boat, were you" question. They need some concise, easy to understand term or phrase that clearly explicates that they DID serve in combat with Kerry. Personally, I like the term "Wingman". It describes the exact situation they were in to a "T", and anyone who has ever seen TopGun will understand it.

Here's an example of how it could have been used effectively lat night:

Swift vet: I served with John Kerry

Estrich: But you weren't on the same boat as him, were you?

Swift vet: I was his wingman

Estrich: But not on the same boat ...

Swift vet: I was his wingman, went into battle with him and saw him engage the enemy from a distance of only a few yards

Estrich: Just answer the question, you weren't on the same boat ...

Swift vet: I was his wingman. [indignantly] I went into combat with him and if it was good enough for the Navy and this country to send me into battle right next to John Kerry, it should be good enough for you.