The Classicist: "Swift Attacks" by Cory Tindall

Swift Attacks
August 27th, 2004 The Kerry-Edwards campaign recently created a new television ad that accuses the president of supporting the controversial swift vets ad. Both ads are being run in Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin. The Kerry ad claims that instead of proposing solutions to our current problems the president is supporting a front group that attacks John Kerry's military record. This comes despite statements by the Bush administration that they are not tied in any way to the swift vets. The ads themselves state that they are not authorized by any campaign, and that they are responsible for the content. What does the Kerry-Edwards campaign consider support? They may consider that Bush supports the swift vet ad because he has not ordered the FCC to prohibit its broadcast. The swift vet ad should in no way be restricted. Kerry would be terribly naive to think that he could continue to use his war record as a campaign gimmick, without having another side of the story surface. If one is going to heavily emphasize a certain area in their campaign, do the American people not have a right to question and hear the other side of the issue? Anything used in a campaign should be subject to scrutiny, including military service. Where was the outcry in the media when the skeptics were questioning Bush's National Guard duty? The Media Research Center found that the three major networks had seventy-five stories questioning Bush’s Guard duty and only nine covering the Swift Vets’ claims. While the media prompted a defense and rebuttal from Bush in regards to his Guard duty, they require no such act from Kerry. Instead they ask for the ads to be removed instead of asking Kerry to disprove their claims. Maybe the liberal media would be happy if Kerry could fabricate or exaggerate anything he desired and not have anyone question his accuracy. The real reason behind all of the uproar may be that there is some truth to what the Swift Vets are claiming. Odd occurrences surround Kerry’s Vietnam service. He only served a term of four months and twelve days, instead of the standard one-year term. He was allowed an early exit because it was prescribed for in the Navy when one received three purple hearts. The three purple hearts did not have to include serious injuries. So despite Kerry’s lack of any real disabling injuries he left his duty early. Kerry claims that it was his idea to use the three Purple Heart excuse to leave Vietnam early. Thomas Wright, a fellow officer who served with and sometimes commanded Kerry, makes a different claim. Wright claims that after Kerry filed for his third Purple Heart, Wright and two other officers informed Kerry of the regulation because they no longer wanted him serving with them. Wright states that Kerry "had a lot of trouble getting Kerry to follow orders," and that he was "oriented towards his personal, rather than unit goals and objectives." Wright went on to say, "We knew how the system worked and we didn’t want him in Coastal Division 11." Another disturbing aspect of his term in Vietnam was the fact that he carried around a video camera to record his experience. He used this camera to film and re-create scenes in which he was a part. These were not merely recreations, but sometimes were exaggerations of the events that actually occurred. The claim that the Swift Vets for Truth are just a Bush produced smear machine just does not hold up when you have Kerry’s entire chain of command, men who fought with him, and 250 other Swift boat veterans questioning his capacity to be president. If Kerry is so sure of his account of his service then why does he not sign a release form for all his military records? Kerry’s latest ad calls for George Bush to “denounce the smear” and “get back to issues.” Since when is a candidate’s character, honesty, and military service not an issue? Do we no longer evaluate the person and strictly vote on what they claim they will do if elected? If Kerry did in fact lie about his military service, then we as voters should be aware of that and consider that when we cast our vote. One reason Kerry is fighting so hard to protect his image as a decorated war hero, is to distract from his senate voting record. In a time of war and terrorism the American people want someone who can make them feel safe. Kerry does not want the average American to find out that he is weak on national defense. So if the issue arises of his military shrinking voting record, then he can point to the fact that he served in Vietnam and was awarded numerous medals. If all you heard or saw was Kerry’s medal decorated Vietnam service, you might be fooled into thinking he was strong on defense. Regardless of your political affiliation, you should embrace the swift vet ad because if forces people to think and research the issue of Kerry's military service.
Back

Swift Attacks

August 27th, 2004

The Kerry-Edwards campaign recently created a new television ad that accuses the president of supporting the controversial swift vets ad. Both ads are being run in Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin. The Kerry ad claims that instead of proposing solutions to our current problems the president is supporting a front group that attacks John Kerry's military record. This comes despite statements by the Bush administration that they are not tied in any way to the swift vets. The ads themselves state that they are not authorized by any campaign, and that they are responsible for the content. What does the Kerry-Edwards campaign consider support? They may consider that Bush supports the swift vet ad because he has not ordered the FCC to prohibit its broadcast. The swift vet ad should in no way be restricted.

Kerry would be terribly naive to think that he could continue to use his war record as a campaign gimmick, without having another side of the story surface. If one is going to heavily emphasize a certain area in their campaign, do the American people not have a right to question and hear the other side of the issue? Anything used in a campaign should be subject to scrutiny, including military service. Where was the outcry in the media when the skeptics were questioning Bush's National Guard duty? The Media Research Center found that the three major networks had seventy-five stories questioning Bush’s Guard duty and only nine covering the Swift Vets’ claims. While the media prompted a defense and rebuttal from Bush in regards to his Guard duty, they require no such act from Kerry. Instead they ask for the ads to be removed instead of asking Kerry to disprove their claims. Maybe the liberal media would be happy if Kerry could fabricate or exaggerate anything he desired and not have anyone question his accuracy.

The real reason behind all of the uproar may be that there is some truth to what the Swift Vets are claiming. Odd occurrences surround Kerry’s Vietnam service. He only served a term of four months and twelve days, instead of the standard one-year term. He was allowed an early exit because it was prescribed for in the Navy when one received three purple hearts. The three purple hearts did not have to include serious injuries. So despite Kerry’s lack of any real disabling injuries he left his duty early. Kerry claims that it was his idea to use the three Purple Heart excuse to leave Vietnam early. Thomas Wright, a fellow officer who served with and sometimes commanded Kerry, makes a different claim. Wright claims that after Kerry filed for his third Purple Heart, Wright and two other officers informed Kerry of the regulation because they no longer wanted him serving with them. Wright states that Kerry "had a lot of trouble getting Kerry to follow orders," and that he was "oriented towards his personal, rather than unit goals and objectives." Wright went on to say, "We knew how the system worked and we didn’t want him in Coastal Division 11." Another disturbing aspect of his term in Vietnam was the fact that he carried around a video camera to record his experience. He used this camera to film and re-create scenes in which he was a part. These were not merely recreations, but sometimes were exaggerations of the events that actually occurred.

The claim that the Swift Vets for Truth are just a Bush produced smear machine just does not hold up when you have Kerry’s entire chain of command, men who fought with him, and 250 other Swift boat veterans questioning his capacity to be president. If Kerry is so sure of his account of his service then why does he not sign a release form for all his military records? Kerry’s latest ad calls for George Bush to “denounce the smear” and “get back to issues.” Since when is a candidate’s character, honesty, and military service not an issue? Do we no longer evaluate the person and strictly vote on what they claim they will do if elected? If Kerry did in fact lie about his military service, then we as voters should be aware of that and consider that when we cast our vote.

One reason Kerry is fighting so hard to protect his image as a decorated war hero, is to distract from his senate voting record. In a time of war and terrorism the American people want someone who can make them feel safe. Kerry does not want the average American to find out that he is weak on national defense. So if the issue arises of his military shrinking voting record, then he can point to the fact that he served in Vietnam and was awarded numerous medals. If all you heard or saw was Kerry’s medal decorated Vietnam service, you might be fooled into thinking he was strong on defense.

Regardless of your political affiliation, you should embrace the swift vet ad because if forces people to think and research the issue of Kerry's military service.

Back