Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on August 21, 2004, 06:28:04 AM
-
Let's see what the FEC says about this:
Sun-Times (http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-camp21.html)
Dems see link to Swift Boat Vets, Bush-Cheney
August 21, 2004
BY PETE YOST
CRAWFORD, Texas -- A volunteer for John Kerry said Friday he picked up a flier in a Bush-Cheney campaign office in Gainesville, Fla., promoting Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group the Bush campaign has insisted for weeks it has no connection to.
The Kerry campaign e-mailed the flier to news organizations Friday, declaring that the Bush- Cheney campaign was ''busted'' for coordinating ''in their smear campaign against John Kerry.''
At Bush-Cheney campaign headquarters outside Washington, spokesman Steve Schmidt said: ''The Bush-Cheney campaign has nothing to do with that piece of paper. . . . I don't know how it showed up at the campaign headquarters.''
The flier distributed at Alachua County Republican Party headquarters promotes a weekend rally sponsored by ''Swift Boat Vets for Truth'' and other groups.
Bill Shilling, a Kerry volunteer in Gainesville, says he went to the GOP offices there Thursday and picked up the flier from a pile of literature on the table.
Financed by a Texas businessman with longtime ties to prominent Republicans in the state, including President Bush, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth sponsored an ad featuring several Vietnam veterans who accuse Kerry of lying about his actions in Vietnam.
Also Friday, the Kerry campaign filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging the group was illegally coordinating its efforts with the Bush-Cheney campaign. The Kerry campaign cited recent press reports and the group's own statements.
AP
-
no meetings...
no money changing hands...
no paper trail coordinating efforts...
not even a phone call...
BUSTED!!!
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl :aok
Oh Lordy Lord...Oh Lordy Lord...there was a flier for the swift boat vets rally at a Republican campaign center...!!!!
Oh my god, there busted!!!!!
hehehe..
Man, I hope you've got more than this. This piece of crap would'nt even make page 7 of the New York Times!
-
What does it take to prove coordination under the FEC rules?
To prove, for example, that an outside group’s ad was coordinated with a candidate’s campaign, any one of the following is required, according to FEC spokesman Bob Biersack:
-The ad being aired by the group was broadcast at the request or suggestion of the candidate, his campaign or an agent of the campaign.
-The group suggested the ad and the candidate or his agent assented to the ad, for example, by saying something such as, “That sounds like a good idea to me.”
-The candidate or his agent was materially involved in decisions about the content of the ad, the times and places where it would air, the medium used, etc.
-The ad was aired after what the FEC calls “substantial discussion” between the person or outside group paying for the ad and the campaign. If, for example, a campaign manager said to the head of a 527 group, “Over the next two weeks, our campaign’s ads will focus on the loss of textile jobs in this state,” and the outside group then ran its own ads buttressing that message, it would be coordination.
-
So they have a flier that anyone with "good intentions" could have made? Now Bush-Cheney are affiliated with the swift vets? Wow maybe I'll go print up some fliers linking Kerry to some of the 527 groups on his side and say I got them at my local Dumbocrat office.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Coolridr
So they have a flier that anyone with "good intentions" could have made? Now Bush-Cheney are affiliated with the swift vets? Wow maybe I'll go print up some fliers linking Kerry to some of the 527 groups on his side and say I got them at my local Dumbocrat office.:rolleyes:
Screw that.
Lets make up some fliers for an Islamic Jihad Rally and leave them on a table at a Kerry Campaign center.
That would link them for sure!!
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Screw that.
Lets make up some fliers for an Islamic Jihad Rally and leave them on a table at a Kerry Campaign center.
That would link them for sure!!
:rolleyes:
Great Idea...I'm taking my prototype add to kinkos right after I post this.:rofl
-
Obviously someone is getting desperate.
-
Just a question here.
Other than Kerry's denial of this groups statements, has there been any verifiable outside confirmation that either side is lying?
So far it seems that a group of folks who were there with Kerry are contradicting his earlier claims. It seems (IMO) both sides are just pointing fingers and making unverified claims. Has anyone been able to provide proof contrary to either's claim?
In either case no one denied Kerry his right to state what he wanted about his service in compliance with the 1st ammendment. Why would he be trying to deny others their right to contradict his claims.
It seems both sides need to get an outside independant investigation of the claims. I honestly don't see how that could happen given the circumstances of the election. :(
-
The irony of the whole thing is that the only commercials who mention another electee's name, are none other than Kerry's.
The two-party system is a failed system.
Karaya
-
The best thing about this whole political silliness is that rpm has exposed himself (over and over) as the flaming liberal that he is... as have others. They are all out of the closet because of how "important" this election is...
lazs
-
I am sure going to be glad when this election is over.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Obviously someone is getting desperate.
No kidding, I think you're grasping at straws with that one, RPM.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Other than Kerry's denial of this groups statements, has there been any verifiable outside confirmation that either side is lying?
I dunno...this made me think twice about the ad though:
"Alfred French, a Clackamas County prosecutor who also served in Vietnam, called Kerry a liar in a television ad. In an interview with The Oregonian, he acknowledged he didn't witness any of the combat incidents involving Kerry but was relying on reports from three friends who were there."
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/1093089856215831.xml
He didn't witness the events, but is willing to go on national television to call Kerry a liar about what happened there? How many of the others in the ad were actually there when it happened?
-
Originally posted by Preon1
no meetings...
no money changing hands...
no paper trail coordinating efforts...
not even a phone call...
BUSTED!!!
People have invaded countrys for less!
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Other than Kerry's denial of this groups statements,
has there been any verifiable outside confirmation that either side is lying?
Whats with this Navy Commander (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6035557) who backs Kerry on Vietnam ?
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
Whats with this Navy Commander (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6035557) who backs Kerry on Vietnam ?
GhostFT, I'm going to quote the entire article.
By Carol Giacomo
PITTSBURGH (Reuters) - An American journalist who commanded a boat alongside John Kerry (news - web sites) in Vietnam broke a 35-year silence on Saturday and defended the Democratic presidential candidate against Republican critics of his military service.
Weighing in on what has become the most bitterly divisive issue of the 2004 campaign for the White House, William Rood of the Chicago Tribune said the tales told by Kerry's detractors are untrue.
"There were three swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than 35 years ago -- three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those officers remain to talk about what happened on February 28, 1969," he wrote in a story that appeared on the newspaper's Web site on Saturday.
"One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other."
Before now, wanting to put memories of war and killing behind him, Rood had refused all requests for interviews on the subject, including from his own newspaper. "But Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown." he wrote.
"The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us.
"It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there," he added.
Kerry, a former Navy lieutenant, is a highly decorated Vietnam veteran, and his war service is essential to his ability to challenge President Bush (news - web sites) on issues of national security and leadership in the face of the Iraq (news - web sites) war and terrorism threats.
Increasingly, veterans opposed to Kerry and allied with Bush -- led by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth -- have tried to undermine Kerry's service record and credibility and the justification for his medals.
In the face of a new CBS poll showing Kerry's support among veterans has slipped since the Democratic convention, the Massachusetts senator has launched an aggressive counterattack.
On Friday, Kerry accused the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth of collaborating with the Bush campaign and asked the Federal Election Commission (news - web sites) to force the group to withdraw ads challenging his Vietnam service.
Bush spent the war in the United States serving in the Texas Air National Guard. Some Democrats have accused Bush of going absent without leave from the guard, citing gaps in his attendance record.
-
"Kerry, a former Navy lieutenant, is a highly decorated Vietnam veteran, and his war service is essential to his ability to challenge President Bush (news - web sites) on issues of national security and leadership in the face of the Iraq (news - web sites) war and terrorism threats. "
In other words Kerry accomplised nothing noteworthy in his 20 year career as a United States senator..
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
"There were three swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than 35 years ago -- three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those officers remain to talk about what happened on February 28, 1969," he wrote in a story that appeared on the newspaper's Web site on Saturday.
"One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other."
You guys DO realize that this is not the same mission they are talking about...right? The swiftboats talk about the March 13th mission when Kerry won his Bronze star, while this guy is talking about the Feb 28th mission where he won the Silver star.
But its really hard to spot that upon casual reading, because the article is formulated in a way to lead the reader to think that these new statements are contradicting the swiftboats.
Pathetic.
-
Well.well.well,lets see what we have here,does anyone on either side think it would help for kerry to release all his military records?
SOB..food for thought. A prosecuter was not there with kerry but relied on three friends that were . Two weeks ago said prosecuter maybe had relied on 3 witness to a murder to be able to call said murderer a liar. The judge,jury and prosecuter were not there so how were they all able to come to conclusion that the muderer was guilty and therefore was a lier?
For any human in America, and a question for rpm as he is a vet.
Everyone should by now know that swift boats were very very noisy, large and combersome boat, that always at least traveled in pairs. They are in fact more noisy and less stable than ww2 pt boats. Tell me using common sense do you really believe they were used in 68 or 69 or anytime to insert any force much less an a or b team of green berets behind enemy lines?
Personaly if it were me, Id rather jump into cambodia with a pink
chute, with a siren and flashing lights on, Id have had more chance.
Kerry has recently changed his story on dates,from dec. to jan.,and other things as this.
It has taken a little time, which the liberal newspapers are shooting for, but so far every article like the ones akcurly refered to have been proven to be false info. Give it time this will be to.
Last you all seem to believe it is all made up because of where the money came from. If that is wrong ,is it not wrong to have rassmann and others being paid monthly by the kerry campainge?
-
I'm shocked.....
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
...In other words Kerry accomplised nothing noteworthy in his 20 year career as a United States senator..
Complete agreement there. Kerry has not distinguished himself on his record as a US Senator.
Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me on Bush's record before he became President? What did he do that was so "Presidential" and/or worthy of the highest office?
Let's compare apples to apples shall we?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
You guys DO realize that this is not the same mission they are talking about...right? The swiftboats talk about the March 13th mission when Kerry won his Bronze star, while this guy is talking about the Feb 28th mission where he won the Silver star.
But its really hard to spot that upon casual reading, because the article is formulated in a way to lead the reader to think that these new statements are contradicting the swiftboats.
Pathetic.
The SBVFT group have been all over the Kerry record disputing practically everything including the Feb account. What's pathetic is the character assasination against Kerry's Vietnam record by a group that ignores Bush's.
Keep in mind I don't fault Bush doing what he did as that was the smart thing to do. Vietnam was a war we didn't need to be involved with.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
.....food for thought. A prosecuter was not there with kerry but relied on three friends that were . Two weeks ago said prosecuter maybe had relied on 3 witness to a murder to be able to call said murderer a liar. The judge,jury and prosecuter were not there so how were they all able to come to conclusion that the muderer was guilty and therefore was a lier?.....
Here Say evidence is usually not permissible in a court case, especially a serious one such as murder.
Now if we heard directly from the three that say they were there to witness the crime, that would be very admissible.
More importantly, I'd like to hear the others that Elliot uses their account to come to his conclusion.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Complete agreement there. Kerry has not distinguished himself on his record as a US Senator.
Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me on Bush's record before he became President? What did he do that was so "Presidential" and/or worthy of the highest office?
Let's compare apples to apples shall we?
The standard liberal judgement about Bush's record is that he is stupid and that he got only along on daddy's name. Libs sayy that all time and there no point discussing it firther - thats what you guys believe.
So I ask whats Kerry's excuse?
I though he was the smart one, the brave effictive leader under fire, the experienced dedicated public servant...
Whats Kerry's excuse for his pointless career in the Senate?
-
TYpical non-voting Bush supporter.. "Anyone but Kerry"
-
Subaros, remember that Alfred French,the prosecutor, was relying on direct testament from three who were there.
-
What difference does it make? They are both scumbags.
It is not a matter of who is the best man for the job, but who is the less worse man for the job.
274 Million people in this country and all we can muster up to be the leader of our country are these two screwsticks!
Incredible!
-
Anyone notice how the swift boat captain in that article is suddenly driving a Benz and his house size just doubled?
-
"are the american living in moon is a moonman ???"
- minus
-
Swager makes a very good point.
-
Minus too.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Just a question here.
Other than Kerry's denial of this groups statements, has there been any verifiable outside confirmation that either side is lying?
So far it seems that a group of folks who were there with Kerry are contradicting his earlier claims. It seems (IMO) both sides are just pointing fingers and making unverified claims. Has anyone been able to provide proof contrary to either's claim?
In either case no one denied Kerry his right to state what he wanted about his service in compliance with the 1st ammendment. Why would he be trying to deny others their right to contradict his claims.
It seems both sides need to get an outside independant investigation of the claims. I honestly don't see how that could happen given the circumstances of the election. :(
The whole issue is a non-issue, IMO. I certainly don't care about it. I'm much more interested in what either one of them's gonna do for our country, and frankly I don't think Kerry's got any idea what he'll do as President. Bush, otoh, is on a roll (no jokes here, please from the left) and I don't wanna change horses in mid-stream, so-to-speak.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Swager makes a very good point.
No he doesn't. He's way off base in painting them both with the same brush, imo.
-
February 28, 1969
Is not March 13, 1969.
-
For any human in America, and a question for rpm as he is a vet.
Everyone should by now know that swift boats were very very noisy, large and combersome boat, that always at least traveled in pairs. They are in fact more noisy and less stable than ww2 pt boats. Tell me using common sense do you really believe they were used in 68 or 69 or anytime to insert any force much less an a or b team of green berets behind enemy lines?
I think I understand your question. Yes, they were used quite often to insert small patrols, SEAL teams, ect. There were 2 types of small boats used. The common sense part of it was the river was the Interstate of Vietnam and these boats were well suited for the job. They were lead magnets and very hazardous duty.
There were 2 types of boats used PBR's and PCF's. PBR's were the small 32ft boats (like in Apocalypse Now) and PCF's were larger faster 50ft boats that could easily carry a landing party. Kerry skippered the later. These boats were smaller and not as loud as a WW2 PT while being more manueverable and durable. Many of the later models bore foam filled hulls and were nearly unsinkable with small arms and rockets. This is not to mean that they were not vulnerable to damage because they had very little armor for protection.
While it may be against the human survival instinct and common sense, they were often used for troop insertions. Early on they did not run in pairs, that was a tactic learned after many boats were lost.
-
Nice work from the Bush regime in getting all the attention on Kerrys Vietnam service.
Now they have managed to turn attention away from the real election issue : The Bush lie about WMD´s.
-
Surely you mean the Kerry lie aboput WMD. Kerry is on record about his thougths about Saddams WMD threat. Of course those were Kerry's thoughts before Howard Dean came along.
-
Nice work from the Bush regime in getting all the attention on Kerry's Vietnam service.
Kerry is running on his Vietnam record. Bush isn’t making Vietnam an issue Kerry is. If you have problems with that then ask Kerry why he doesn’t run on "issues" or his record in the Senate or his post Vietnam activities. Kerry is using his 5 months in Vietnam as a main issue in his campaign because that is all he has.
It only stands to reason that who ever he is running against him will challenge him on it. Especially considering that that the facts around Kerry’s time in Vietnam not all together clear.
I am not sure how much this swift boat stuff is playing but I suspect once the winter soldier stuff starts getting air time it will over shadow his 5 months in country.
His congressional testimony is riddled with out right lies and isn’t much more then Kerry grand standing.
But if it gets you through the night I guess its ok to blame Bush.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The standard liberal judgement about Bush's record is that he is stupid and that he got only along on daddy's name. Libs sayy that all time and there no point discussing it firther - thats what you guys believe.
So then, set us straight. Ball is in your court. You can choose to actually answer the questions honestly or keep evading, your choice.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Subaros, remember that Alfred French,the prosecutor, was relying on direct testament from three who were there.
Ahh okay, I misunderstood you then.
edited to add:
Did your prosecutor question the others that were involved in that mission before he formed his opinion? How about interviewing the main suspect (Kerry) as well? I doubt it. Seems he has a political agenda that's only surfacing now because a Democratic candidate has a real chance of winning the White House. I guess the ends justify the means, eh? Okay to lie as long as it gets your man elected.
Bahhhh, politics!
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Surely you mean the Kerry lie aboput WMD. Kerry is on record about his thougths about Saddams WMD threat. Of course those were Kerry's thoughts before Howard Dean came along.
This misinformation about the Iraq WMD's is not a political one but an intelligence gathering/reporting one. Every politician from the President on down, used intelligence reports that were questionable at best.
Now for the million dollar question, how do we fix that? How do we as a free nation with the biggest possible responsibility in the world today, verify our intelligence reports?
We have a bigger responsibility to the American people to make damn sure we're acting on solid evidence rather than "forming" it to fit an agenda.
What a terrible price to pay in the wounded and killed of our fellow Americans, Allies, and innocent victims of wars without merit or proper, accurate cause.
War should be an absolute last resort when all else has failed. Only time War should be on the top of responses is for defense where other options would not be practical.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
So then, set us straight. Ball is in your court. You can choose to actually answer the questions honestly or keep evading, your choice.
You guys think that Bush is stupid, what else is there to debate? He did gone done a bad job with his life cuz he aint too smert! He had only one term as governor, four years to practice politics in office. That means four years to either do a good job or bad job, or only four years to practice politics on the job, that isnt a lot of time to get much of a record or to doo much, plus, you know he's really dumb. So overall he had minimal chances to show his stuff before the presidency. So yea, lets say that Bush didnt have much of a record as a 1 term Texas governor.
But what about John Kerry's 20 year senate record!
John Kerry, who is really really smart he had 20 years in the US Senate to show his stuff. TWO DECADES! And what noteworthy deeds has he accomplished with that career? NOTHING! In 20 yaers he did nothing in the senate. Well he did manage to vote aginst every major weapon sytem and voted to cut CIA spending in the 1990s but heck, why hold that aginst him.
So I'm asking you what's Kerry'sw excuse for his pathetic two decade record in the Senate?
Is he stupid?
Inept?
Slow?
Lazy?
Doesnt care?
Too busy making up his mind on complex issues?
Vast right wing conspiracy?
So in conclusion, the new Kerry Kampaign Theme Slogan! (As you see it's very complex because kerry is the kandidate who appreciates complexity!)
Hey fellow liberals! Do you want to vote for Bush, who you think stupid and had an undistinguished 4 year carrer in office because of his stupidity? Or do you want Kerry, who had a pathetic 20 year undistinguished carrer in office (for yet unknown reasons)?
Kerry 2004!
Why did Kerry have such a poor record?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
But what about John Kerry's 20 year senate record!
But now John Kerry, who is really really smart he had 20 years in the US Senate to show hsi stuff. TWO DECADES! And what notworthy deeds has he accomplished with that career? NOTHING! In 20 yaers he did nothing in the senate. Well he did manage to vote aginst every major weapon sytem and voted to cut CIA spending in the 1990s but heck, why hold that aginst him.
So I'm asking you what's Kerry'sw excuse for his pathetic two decade record in the Senate?
Is he stupid?
Inept?
Slow?
Lazy?
Doesnt care?
Too busy making up his mind on complex issues?
Vast right wing conspiracy?
No hes your avarage day "senates" man. I dont think hes better or worse than any other in the Senate.
-
Originally posted by Swager
What difference does it make? They are both scumbags.
It is not a matter of who is the best man for the job, but who is the less worse man for the job.
274 Million people in this country and all we can muster up to be the leader of our country are these two screwsticks!
Incredible!
We, the American public are to blame for the way the politicians campaign. We are generally ignorant and/or lazy to really study the issues and statements. Those who attack their opponent best will win. That's our "evolution."
Many Democrats are going to elect Kerry based on extremely vague promises very short on the details ("Hope is on the way!" Sheesh!). Just as we elected Bush the last elections. Just the way we've been doing it since day one (or so it seems).
Just you wait when the Bush will address the RNC, he'll offer up his own soundbites being just as vague.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
No hes your avarage day "senates" man. I dont think hes better or worse than any other in the Senate.
LOL. Actually thats not true, he aouthered no significant laws. I dont think he even co authroed any signifint law. He missed the majority of some of the most important intelligence hearings in the 1990s.
He is no way the average Senator, he is below par. He is a very poor senator with no accomplisments in 20 years. And he knows it.
But I know it's tough for you guys, so:
Whatever John Kerry does must be good, or at least average!
Vote for John Kerry 2004 - he's an average senatr!
Really fellas, with candidates like this you'd be fools to vaste your time voting... :(
-
Yes, it really is two bad choices.
I really think its time for someone to field a good actor as a candidate. Have a crack team of politicians and economists behind him and have him as a fasad.
It really is getting pathetic.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Yes, it really is two bad choices.
I really think its time for someone to field a good actor as a candidate. Have a crack team of politicians and economists behind him and have him as a fasad.
It really is getting pathetic.
Bad as it is, it could be worse. (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-nj--governorresigns-p0821aug20,0,3528858.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire)
-
Originally posted by demaw1
SOB..food for thought. A prosecuter was not there with kerry but relied on three friends that were . Two weeks ago said prosecuter maybe had relied on 3 witness to a murder to be able to call said murderer a liar. The judge,jury and prosecuter were not there so how were they all able to come to conclusion that the muderer was guilty and therefore was a lier?
In your scenario, the prosecutor would have presented the witnesses to tell the judge & jury what they saw, not that he was a witness himself. But that's not what this guy did. He said that he served with John Kerry and that he is lying about what happened in Vietnam. He didn't say that he has friends that saw the events that lead him to believe Kerry is a liar. It's presented as though he was there himself, seeing with his own eyes, the events that Kerry is supposedly lying about. IMO, he seems to be full of watermelon and politically motivated. And while I can't fully judge the rest of the ad based on this, it really doesn't give much credence to their argument in my mind.
by The Associated Press, 08/21/04
In the ad, French says, “I served with John Kerry. … He is lying about his record.”
...
“I was not a witness to these events, but my friends were,” said French, who was awarded two Bronze Stars during the war. “I believe these people. These are people I served with.”
...
French, a registered Republican, said that he and Kerry served in the same unit in January and February 1969 but that he did not know him well.
The full AP article at http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=85468.
Oregon man says Kerry lied about war record
The Clackamas County prosecutor appears in TV ads
The Associated Press
August 21, 2004
PORTLAND — A Clackamas County prosecutor is taking part in the case against John Kerry.
Alfred French, 58, a senior deputy district attorney, appears in an ad that attacks the Democratic presidential contender’s war record.
The ad features 13 Vietnam veterans who say Kerry has lied about his war record. The 60-second spot aired for seven days this month in Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
In the ad, French says, “I served with John Kerry. … He is lying about his record.”
Kerry received a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and three Purple Hearts commanding a swift boat in Vietnam. French, in an interview this week, said Kerry lied about the circumstances that led to one of his Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star.
French said he is relying on the accounts of three other veterans.
“I was not a witness to these events, but my friends were,” said French, who was awarded two Bronze Stars during the war. “I believe these people. These are people I served with.”
One of the men is Larry Thurlow, a leader of the veterans group and one of Kerry’s most vocal critics. Thurlow, who served alongside Kerry, has disputed Kerry’s claim that the senator’s boat was under fire in March 1969 when he pulled Lt. Jim Rassmann out of the water.
According to Thurlow’s military records, obtained this week by The Washington Post, the five-boat flotilla was under enemy fire that day.
Rassmann, who lives in Florence and is campaigning for Kerry, said the ad is motivated in part by some veterans’ anger about Kerry’s antiwar stance upon returning home. French acknowledges that.
Rassmann said the group’s claims are false.
French, a registered Republican, said that he and Kerry served in the same unit in January and February 1969 but that he did not know him well.
-
(http://www.gilbertv.com/coppermine/albums/052104/iraq.jpg)
BUSTED AGAIN! (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apelection_story.asp?category=1131&slug=Bush%20Cordier)
Former POW resigns from Bush campaign
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON -- A former POW resigned as a volunteer to President Bush's re-election campaign Saturday after it was learned that he appeared in an anti-John Kerry ad sponsored by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Retired Air Force Col. Ken Cordier, resigned as a member of the Bush campaign's veterans' steering committee after it was learned that he appeared with other former POWs in a 30-second ad, produced by the Swift Boat group, criticizing Kerry's congressional testimony.
The White House and the Bush campaign have denied any direct connection with Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which is funded in part by a top GOP donor in Texas.