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.
If this is the best their "Brown Book" has then it might not be so devasting to the Swiftvets. I believe they would play their "best card" first in order to stop this movement in its tracks.
Also, remember that Boston Globe story which said one of the swiftvets had recanted his story. I bit this line and thought it was probably over for the vets. But not so. Maybe this glitch will have the same effect.
Typical - attack the messenger but do nothing to validate or discredit the message itself.
Could this be the reason for the Swiftvets book's delays at places like Barnes and Noble?? Buying time for the brown book innoculation to be distributed to the party faithful?
Who will really read the Post? I hardly ever click on the page anymore. Too hard to access any articles, and I can read the summaries here. Circulation dwindles, and influence along with it.
Larry Thurlow is not running for president. Kerry is.
BTTT
"Who will really read the Post? I hardly ever click on the page anymore. Too hard to access any articles, and I can read the summaries here. Circulation dwindles, and influence along with it."
This story was published first in the Post but now it is all over the media. One does not have to read the post to hear this story.
I don't know what that first post was talking about v the after action reports. None have been made public. Because we could then see if Kerry was responsible for the claims of small arms fire. They in no way discredited him because he's saying the same thing.
Let's see the after action reports filed by Kerry v the others.
The Wash Post has ignored the SwiftVets until today...... The WP makes me sick
Hey Washington Posties....RELEASE KERRY's MILITARY RECORDS!!!!!!
"And where does the Washington Post place this article on Thurlow??? FRONT PAGE, Column One...... that's where!
The Wash Post has ignored the SwiftVets until today...... The WP makes me sick"
First look I agree, however, does this not open the door to require the "military records" of the one and only one running for president. "IF" the campaign and media goes after one persons "records" then somebody should go after what is so "secret" in JFKerry's official records.
How is it that JFKerry gets his "official" documents signed by Lehman as Secretary of Navy when JFKerry did not serve while Lehman was Secretary of Navy?
Why was his Silver Star citation signed by Secy of the Navy John Lehman when he wasn't Secy of the e Navy until 12 years LATER???
Someone ask Lehman this question please.
Well buried in the Wash post story is this little item, when they claim Thurlow must have wriiten the cation report
For much of the episode, Kerry was not in a position to know firsthand what was happening on Thurlow's boat, as Kerry's boat had sped down the river after the mine exploded under another boat. He later returned to provide assistance to the stricken boat.
Now does that agree with the Pravda on Johnkerry.com or with the Swift Vets account that the departed kerry returned when it became evident there was no hostile fire?
Most media reports omitted that little item.
Nobody knows propaganda like the left. Their goal is for America to sleepily slide into a socialist democracy without even realizing it.
Through control of the major media outlets, the public schools/universities, the unions and the courts, the socialist left has far more power than their actual numbers.
John Forbes Kerry wouldn't have been the leader in this presidential election 20 years ago. We are the enemy to the socialists and their dupes... plain and simple. And they have been conducting a war against us more covertly than Al Qaeda could ever dream of doing!
Wait a minute. I must have missed the part about the after action reports. I thought the references about the enemy fire in Thurlow's records were from the citation (which he wouldn't have written), and not from his reports. I'll have to read the article again.
1. Remember Commando Kerrys first night out in Vietnam, in the Boston Whaler? He said he, and I believe, others were scared shitless? And they "saw" enemy fire. The "believed" they were being fired upon, or at least he did.
Normal, but not true. You see what you are afraid of. But that doesn't make it so.
Now this incident. A Swiftboat hits, or a mine is detonated. Perfect start for an ambush. Here we have what 4 boats, with about say 6 crew, for a total of 24 men. All of whom are geared up for what would be a perfect ambush. Only it doesn't happen. Only a few "see" the flashes and water hits from small arms.
No one shot.
No Rocket Propelled Grenades seen nor hits.
No wounded by small arms.
No holes in boats.
No shrapnel.
All but a couple of sailors and officers say no fire.
Because there wasn't any.
No, you are right. We meant to say "tipped off about the citation regarding the incident". We changed it in the original article on our site. Thanks.
Actually, I did see where you addressed that issue, but I just missed it before I posted it. In any event, it does show how misleading the WaPo article, and the accompanying reporting of it, is.
Coming from the Washington Post, I'm not surprised about the dirty tricks. What I remember most about the dirty trickster pro-demoncRAT Post goes back to the Nixon era when the Post day after day, front page after front page told how Nixon ordered bugging the DNC HQ. People were inundated with the Post's misleading, titillating stories of Nixon wrong doing. It was clear the Post had an agenda to bring Nixon down. Yet, one day, on page 23, buried in small print, about 10 lines long, there was a story about how the DNC bugged Goldwater's campaign headquarters. I never bought a Post newspaper after that.
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.