Posted on 09/22/2004 10:03:16 AM PDT by kingattax
I think that many people who have seen the sixth ad being put out by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth will agree with me when say that the ad, entitled "Friends" had the potential to do as much damage to the Kerry campaign as the entire Rathergate/Danron fiasco. Don't believe me? Watch the ad yourself. And, in case you can't see it, here's a transcript.
The beauty of this ad is that it is simple, verifiably true, and utterly devastating. We know that John Kerry met with the Vietnamese Communists because he admitted it to us. We know that, as American boys fought and died in the muck of Vietnam, John Kerry sat with their perfumed diplomats in Europe and conspired to hand victory in the war to the Communists. We know this to be true. We know it because John Kerry told it to us.
Let me quote him exactly, because it's important to get this right. Kerry said, "I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government." His words, ladies and gentlemen. While the United States was at war, John Kerry went to Paris and spoke with the enemies of the Republic.
People say that what happened thirty-plus years ago doesn't matter, shouldn't matter in this campaign. Perhaps, in most cases, that should be true. But in this case it certainly does matter. Does any sane person really believe that whether or not George W. Bush showed up for a week's worth of drills in Alabama thirty-three years ago is somehow more consequential than the admitted fact that Senator Kerry, as a nearly thirty year-old politician, travelled to a foreign nation to meet with the enemies of this country while the nation was at war and then returned in order to advocate that the United States accept peace on the terms of the communist Vietnamese (or, in other words, surrender)?
If this gets out (and since the Swift Vets are reportedly set to spend $2 million running this ad, it will) how does the Kerry campaign respond to it in a credible fashion? In essence, they're left with a handful of options, all of them bad.
They can ignore the accusations altogether, but I don't think they'll try that one again, seeing as it worked so well with the first Swift Vet assault.
Attempting to deflect attention by attacking Bush on his National Guard service is out now since, thanks to CBS (and probably the DNC too), pretty much anything to do with Bush's guard service is going to be radioactive for the rest of the campaign.
Perhaps they can trot Senator Kerry out to, in the mother of all flip-flops, apologize for some of his anti-war activism.
Alternately, they can act outraged that anyone would, "question Senator Kerry's patriotism." This, in all probability, is the course that they'll take in the coming days.
And they'll be right: it is an attack on Senator Kerry's patriotism. But, much more importantly than that, it is an accurate attack on his patriotism. Worse still (for Kerry's dwindling legions) is that it feeds into perceptions of how Senator Kerry would behave as President.
The most obvious point that must be taken from his claims as to Vietnamese intentions at the time is that either Kerry is a liar or he is an extremely gullible man (or perhaps both). Also in his Senate testimony in 1971, John Kerry told the American people that, at the most, the lives of perhaps two thousand to three thousand South Vietnamese would be at risk if the United States withdrew from Vietnam. As we would later see, the numbers would be substantially higher.
This, of course, was not a surprise to anyone with a lick of common sense. He entire world had already seen the crimes of communism in Russia, in Eastern Europe, in China and, indeed, in North Vietnam. Only a very easily deceived person could have believed that the pattern would not repeat the moment the Vietnamese Communists gripped the South within their claws.
Even worse, this wasn't the only time that Senator Kerry allowed himself to be deceived by foreign enemies of the United States, nor was it the only time that Kerry was used to deliver the demands of an enemy of the United States to the American government and people.
In 1985, the newly-elected Senator Kerry took a trip to Nicaragua, where he met with the communist dictator of that country. When he returned to the United States from that trip, the Senator had brought something with him: the Sandinistas' offer for peace with the United States. Once more John Forbes Kerry voluntarily conveyed the demands of a hostile foreign power to his own government. Yet again John Kerry called upon the President of the United States to accept, in whole, the terms offered by an enemy of the Republic.
Once the American people know this history, once they've taken it all in, they'll be left with the same frightful question that I've carried with me for nine months: what happens if the person receiving that offer is no longer Lieutenant Kerry or Senator Kerry, but President Kerry? What happens if there's no one higher on up for Kerry to call upon to accept the enemy's terms: what if Kerry himself is in a position to accept the enemy's terms?
This is significant because the John Kerry of 2004 shows every sign of being every bit as gullible as the John Kerry of 1985 and the John Kerry of 1971. He's claimed that foreign leaders are eager to see him become President. I'll bet they are.
All of this takes on even greater importance since Kerry proposes to, as President, base his entire foreign policy upon seeking negotiated solutions to the world's problems and since Senator Kerry apparently believes that "negotiating" means "accepting uncritically whatever those sophisticated foreigners tell me" this means that a President Kerry would almost certainly have a foreign policy revolving around the calculated sale of America's national interest.
Kerry pretends to talk tough on North Korea, but then he says things like, "We must be prepared to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that addresses the full range ofÇF? North Korea's concerns about security and economic development." It doesn't take a genius to figure out what Senator Kerry really means. When he accuses the Bush Administration of "not paying enough attention" to North Korea he really means, "Being insufficiently slavish in appeasing Kim Jong Il."
The same is true on Iran. Senator Kerry talks about getting tough, and yet his core proposal for dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions involves giving nuclear fuel to the Ayatollahs. No, I didn't make that up. Here's Senator Kerry himself, "We should call their bluff, and organize a group of states that will offer the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they can't divert it to build a weapon." He's so trusting (or stupid) that he's almost cute.
But, in truth, there's nothing cute about the fact that virtually every time that Senator Kerry has dealt with an enemy of the United States (or offered a proposal for dealing with an enemy) in the field of diplomacy, his response has been to become an advocate of proposals favourable to that enemy.
In 1971, John Kerry wanted the US to unilaterally begin withdrawing from Vietnam and trust the North Vietnamese Communists to return US POW's of their own volition.
In 2004, John Kerry wants to give "nuclear fuel" to Iran and trust that they won't do anything bad with it, won't divert any portion of it, and will give it all back just as they're supposed to.
John Kerry may trust the enemies of America but the American people just can't trust John Kerry.
PING
Watch the ad at:
http://www.swiftvets.com
Nice article, thanks... will be forwarding.
In 2004, John Kerry wants to give "nuclear fuel" to Iran and trust that they won't do anything bad with it, won't divert any portion of it, and will give it all back just as they're supposed to.
John Kerry may trust the enemies of America but the American people just can't trust John Kerry.
John Kerry is a dangerous, egomaniacal idiot whose sense of self is so huge that he believes he should be President simply by virtue of being John Kerry. I am really looking forward to his concession speech and the whining of the Dems on how they once again failed to get their message out.
And let's not forget that he was an officer in the United States Navy Reserve at the time which, I submit, is why his discharge papers were dated years after he was to have been discharged.
Deadly.
Bump for later read ...
That said, I don't think there is any more to gain from Kerry's Vietnam or post-Vietnam shenanigans. I think that the public has crystallized on this: the Swifties hammered him, and drove his negatives up to the mid-40s. That's no small feat. However, I think we have gained all we will get from this line of attack.
Can't prove it, but I bet if you did some polling or focus group stuff, you'd find out that I'm right. The next connection needs to be from Kerry's Vietnam and post-Vietnam service to the WAR ON TERROR. Yes, the ad does have a good last line, but it is NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO THE WAR ON TERROR. Right now, the only "movement" appears to be with the "security moms." Bush has them, but they need to be solidified. The Swifties could do this with direct ties from Kerry's anti-Americanism to 9/11. Only they have the cajones to do this. Will they?
LOL! Rhetorical question???
I am really looking forward to his concession speech and the whining of the Dems on how they once again failed to get their message out. or he will just call them all scumbags and tell them to shove it!
WOWOWOW this is a GREAT article .. I had to take some time and email the author!!....
The question of his going to Paris is not as effectively damning as an anti-Kerry ad, in my opinion, as is the question of his criminalizing fellow soldiers for war atrocities. I like that one better.
Lenin said that capitalists would sell the very rope they would be hung by.
Kerry said he would sell to terrorists the very fuel that would incinerate our cities!
My tagline says it all!
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
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.