Posted on 01/05/2008 10:26:45 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
well, I still occasionally start writing the year on a check as 19.., so please forgive me.
The vast majority of those funds were contributed *after* the Swift Vets had already dealt enormous political damage to the Kerry campaign in August 2004. That was made possible primarily by tens of thousands of small online donations.
The lie the leftists are promoting this week is that the Swift Vets were the creation of their top donors. In fact, those donors saw the Swift Vets gutting Kerry like a fish and reached into their wallets to reinforce that success.
Does to me!
Swiftees are the best money I ever spent. "Hanoi" John was thwarted, and all Vietnam Vets got some long overdue and well deserved thanks.
That is because SBVT was an angry reaction to John Kerry’s shameless exaggeration of his Vietnam record at the expense of everyone else who served. When Kerry aired his fabricated combat home movie and rendered his Vaudevillian salute at the convention he triggered the anger of millions of veterans.
Shortly afterward, the Swift Boat Veterans held their first news conference at the National Press Club in Washington. Except for UPI and C-Span, the news media boycotted the event. Only when the group’s book—”Unfit to Command”—became a national bestseller did the media pay any attention.
Teddy Kennedy and the Boston Democrat machine stage managed the short Vietnam experience of this shameless thespian. If you study Kerry’s political career his lies about Vietnam got more outrageous over time.
____________________________________________________________
washingtonpost.com:
John Kerry: Hunter, Dreamer, Realist
Complexity Infuses Senator’s Ambition
By Laura Blumenfeld
Washington Post Staff Writer
6-1-03
-snip-
. . .And who is he, really?
A close associate hints: There’s a secret compartment in Kerry’s briefcase. He carries the black attaché everywhere. Asked about it on several occasions, Kerry brushed it aside. Finally, trapped in an interview, he exhaled and clicked open his case.
“Who told you?” he demanded as he reached inside. “My friends don’t know about this.”
The hat was a little mildewy. The green camouflage was fading, the seams fraying.
“My good luck hat,” Kerry said, happy to see it. “Given to me by a CIA guy as we went in for a special mission in Cambodia.”
Kerry put on the hat, pulling the brim over his forehead. His blue button-down shirt and tie clashed with the camouflage. He pointed his finger and raised his thumb, creating an imaginary gun. He looked silly, yet suddenly his campaign message was clear: Citizen-soldier. Linking patriotism to public service. It wasn’t complex after all; it was Kerry.
He smiled and aimed his finger: “Pow.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59559-2003May30?language=printer
My husband and I were one of those tens of thousands of small donors and consider it the BEST political contribution either of us ever made to anything or anyone. I can't remember which of the 3 it was who gave a sizable donation prior that got the whole thing off the ground and made it possible for the Swift Vets to collect all the small donations.
This article seems to be p.o.'d that the Swift Vets didn't go away after '04. All I'm saying is that they would go away if Soros would tell his lackeys in Congress to end 527's, but of course, they enacted the legislation to give him power, and he's not about to do that to get rid of these 3 pikers who are spending a drop in the bucket compared to what he and his socialist buddies spend.
I personally have never seen the Swifties debunked, but I have seen it said that they were, even though I know that they were not.
'In his cover piece after the election, this reporter revealed why the Kerry campaign had been "slow to respond" to the SBVFT. He wrote:
"Because most of the charges were true."
A fact that the left has no difficulty ignoring, evidently.'
Is it possible to provide a link to that. I'd like to read it myself.
An Inside Report On The Kerry Campaign...or a similar title.
One of their reporters was "embedded" with the Kerry campaign. There was a prior agreement that he would publish nothing until after the election.
There's a similar episode concerning the SBVFT, as reported by the Washington Post.
When they couldn't ignore it any longer, they did a complete report of the events on the river, when Kerry "rescued" the soldier. Gave it front page treatment, complete with diagrams.
For some reason, the Post assigned the project to their Science writer -- probably because he was the only person in the newsroom capable of doing any serious research.
The story exhaustively described the events of the day, as reported by various sources -- eyewitness, books, official reports, etc.
At the end, it concluded that the actual events had been pretty much as the Swift Boat Vets had described.
That was the first -- and last -- piece the Post ran on the controversy. And, to my knowledge, the last time that the Science writer did a front page piece.
No pretense of objectivity.
I know John O'Neill was taken aback.
I.e., they weren't true because Pinch didn't want them to be true.
Once I read this, there was no need to read any more of this article. "ruthlessly", "smearing", "war hero", and the reference to the "11 year old boy" are all Pure Liberal BS.
That's the core of the lie.
The Swift Vets *did* go away after 2004 - they stood down as an organization in Orlanda in January of 2005. I was there. The leftists are trying to pretend that when people who supported the Swift Vets support other political efforts that they are somehow related.
I was a Swift Boat donor. I have not donated to McCain. Never would, never will.
verb. To tell the truth about a lying democRat politician (who looks French).
Thanks for the ping. Unable to counter the Swift Boat Veterans’ facts, the leftists attack the donors. Typical.
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.