Jerry! Jerry!

[Dreamer128]

Do these people have zero dignity? I have yet to read about a single blow in the American political arena that landed above the belt..

Kerry files Vietnam ads complaint

John Kerry has asked the US Federal Election Commission to put an end to TV adverts which discredit his record as a soldier during the Vietnam War.
The Democratic presidential candidate said the group behind the "inaccurate" ads was working illegally with the campaign to re-elect President Bush.

Mr Kerry said earlier the group was doing George W Bush's "dirty work".

The White House has denied any role in the ads and accused Mr Kerry of making "false and baseless attacks".

"We've already said we weren't involved in any way in these ads - we've made that clear," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said in Crawford, Texas, where the president is holidaying at his ranch.

The spokesman suggested that Mr Kerry was "losing his cool".

While denying any role in the ads, the Bush administration and his re-election staff have declined to condemn the ads, which suggest Mr Kelly is exaggerating his valour in an election year where security is a key theme.

The BBC's Adam Brookes reports from Washington that the presidential election race is becoming dominated now by the character and record of the two candidates, and this latest episode is a sign of just how nasty it is getting.

'Attack group'

The Kerry campaign announced on Friday it had filed a legal complaint against Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) for "violating the law with inaccurate ads that are illegally coordinated with the Bush-Cheney presidential campaign".

It asked the Federal Election Commission to warn the SBVT and the Bush campaign against "further violations" and oblige them to "repay their illegal contributions" as well as imposing a maximum fine.

Our correspondent notes that John Kerry's military service in Vietnam is a central element of his election campaign.

As a naval officer, he commanded a small vessel known as a "swift boat". He saw combat and was decorated.

The SBVT released a second ad on Friday morning, following one aired at the beginning of the month.

Mr Kerry has condemned the SBVT's "lies" and accuses Mr Bush of using it as a front group.

"The president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country," he told a firefighters' union this week.

"Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that."

The Democratic Party has released a commercial of its own in which Jim Rassman, a former special forces soldier in Vietnam, pays tribute to John Kerry for saving his life at risk to his own.

Anti-Bush ads

Mr McClellan has argued that President Bush was himself the target of $62m worth of negative advertising.

He said the president had condemned "all of the ads by the shadowy groups".

Mr Kerry has condemned adverts by a liberal group, funded by Democrat supporters, which alleges President Bush used family influence to avoid serving during the Vietnam war.

President Bush remained in the US throughout the conflict, performing military service with the Texas Air National Guard.

Both candidates have so far avoided direct attacks on each other's activities during the Vietnam war.

(BBC)

[Ilander]

Yeah, this IS getting pretty ugly...but really, it seems more like wagging the dog in this case than the political soap opera ever was before...

"Here, watch this hand"

SMACK!

[John D Harris]

Both sides use the Shadow groups, nothing new here. Ain't election reform a wonderful thing In my years of watching the political belly aching, I remember the old saying we used as kids when somebody squeezed out a "silent but deadly" fart, "Guilty dog barks first" both sides are crying that the other side started it. The real question is when one side defends their position do they defend their position by saying the facts are wrong and here is why. Or do they defend their postion by saying the otherside is being bad, and offer no supporting/refuting facts.

[Nightwing]

I think you're right John when you say they defend themselves by saying how bad the other is. Just once I would like a canidate to campaign with the faith in their program instead of elect me because the other is so bad.

I wonder if it would be feasible to have an eight hour program twice before the election in which the canidates state their strengths and then debate each other after. No more campaigning and wasting so much money. Put the money they save into education or some worthwhile fund.

I have never been swayed, one way or anouther, by any political campaign commercial or on site visit. I just think it is a waste of time and money.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Nightwing: I think you're right John when you say they defend themselves by saying how bad the other is. Just once I would like a canidate to campaign with the faith in their program instead of elect me because the other is so bad. I wonder if it would be feasible to have an eight hour program twice before the election in which the canidates state their strengths and then debate each other after. No more campaigning and wasting so much money. Put the money they save into education or some worthwhile fund. I have never been swayed, one way or anouther, by any political campaign commercial or on site visit. I just think it is a waste of time and money.

That would be a good idea,(not the education part, the USA spends more money per capita then any other country on education allready and we still haven't had any change in our standings ) I learned a long time ago in school for advertizing that "the other product is bad and we're better" ads don't do anywhere as good as "we are good" ads. ie: old Pepsi adds with the taste test stuff, so what if 4 out of 5 thought Pespi was the better tasting, Coke out sold them 2:1, Coke had positive ads. Negative ads convince those that are allready going to vote that way they are still making the right choice. Positive ads convince them on the fence and not to strongly supporting their canidate to consider the canidate placing the ad.

[Felix The Assassin]

I have not had the privledge to see one of these commercials to date. However, I have followed the written trail as lined out by the topic starter's post. It appears that the 'TRUTH' must be real close to fact. Or, the Senator was not anticipating a rememberence of this from the Vietnam era vets.

I have seen the word treason, and the word traitor used. If he did in fact, as the accounts go, do this prior to discharge, he should really ought to be brought back to Congress to face those charges.

But who then, would be the replacement? At least with this guy, folks are seeing some interesting media.

[sageridder]

Kerry might have accused the Bush re-election staff of being behind these ads because a Bush campainer that worked with them on veterans issues
was actually in some of the ads.Here's a link(about halfway down the page is the statment)
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...gn_kerry_dc_33

[Chewbacca]

The SBVFT are a bunch of partisan dousch bags. They are a bunch of bitter Republican pills who can't get over the fact that Kerry joined thousands of other Vets speaking out against the Vietnam war when he returned from service there.

I nominate them collectively for this year's "Biggest Douschbags in the Universe" award.

The amount of evidence discrediting the Swift Boat Vets for "Truth" is overwhelming, I have only provided a small sample here. It seems to me they should rename the organization "Swift Boat Vets For Falsehood"


Swift Boat Accounts Incomplete
Critics Fail to Disprove Kerry's Version of Vietnam War Episode


New Evidence Undermines Swift Vets' Attack on Kerry

Swift Change Of Heart
Critic once saluted Kerry's bravery, loyalty, moral courage

Navy Commander, Journalist, Backs Kerry on Vietnam

Snopes has a page on it as well.

[Felix The Assassin]

Tanks Chewbacca, those are some of the best links yet.
I really like where one says 5 boats, but the other says 3.
Then the one where another guy got the same BS as this guy, stated they were not under enemy small arms fire.
Then the part from the LTCMDR, at the bottom states they were under sniper fire.
All along I had envisioned this guy jumping into the river to save the other all the while under small arms fire. When in reads in the report, he scooped him up from his position on the bow, and only sniper fire had been observed.

Now, to the unkowing. Small arms fire = 7.62mm and below, and lots of it.
Sniper fire = 7.62mm or greater, and only 1.

So, yes, it is all now, clear as mud.

But, the main issue is still at large. Did he commit treason, and or is he a traitor?

[Khazadman Risen]

That's easy Felix. Kerry is a traitor. He illegally met with representatives from North Viet Nam in Paris.
And that so called new evidence that undermines the SBVFT is nothing more than a citation based on Kerry's report of what happened.