Kerry slams 'swift boat' attack on Obama
Source: The Hill
Democratic Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) said Friday that attacks by former U.S. intelligence and special operations officers on President Obama in a new ad hold a striking resemblance to the "Swift Boat" attacks seen in his own presidential bid.
Kerry, the Democrats presidential nominee in 2004, issued a statement to Obama supporters on Friday slamming accusations made by the supposedly bipartisan Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund.
The group, which is reportedly tied to Republican and Tea Party groups, issued a video charging the Obama administration with leaking details of sensitive national security operations and of using the mission targeting former al Qaeda leader bin Laden for political gain.
(...)
"Seeing the new outrageous attacks made against President Obama from a shadowy Republican-allied veterans group called OPSEC . . . remind me all too well of the notorious Swift Boat attacks I faced in the 2004 campaign," Kerry said in the statement.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/244231-kerry-slams-swift-boat-attack-on-obama-
msongs
(67,395 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)Where was this opinion in 2004?
Sorry!
I think John Kerry should become more vocal in this campaign. I would like to see that, if for no other reason than to highlight the difference between the parties.
Nevertheless, such a tactic would be difficult given past history. But if I wanted to highlight Republican dirty tricks, the Swift-Boating of John Kerry is iconic. It goes far beyond CREEP's Musky letter. For Christ sake, there was a news outlet (FOX) who was willing to parrot the story.
That's all it took.
still_one
(92,141 posts)helped push the swift puke lies by playing the story as though it was fact. They were, and are, a disgrace to real journalist everywhere
At least he is coming out now. I suspect his thoughts were if he didn't respond people would ignore it as a ridiculous claim. What he didn't count on was the MSM pushing the crap as plausible
This is Kerry's time for payback, also the Democrats to exponse these POS for what they are, racist, lying, bigots
MBS
(9,688 posts)emulatorloo
(44,116 posts)And only a handful of Dems condemned the SwiftBoat attacks - media didn't cover them either.
still_one
(92,141 posts)Obama called a press conference immediately, got national coverage and stopped it in his tracks
Kerry should have done the same thing, he assumed the media would debunk it for him, and it would resolve like the drudge lie anout his affair with a campaign staffer which automaticaaly got debunked fairly rapidly. My point is the Obama camp learned from Kerry
karynnj
(59,501 posts)would have given Obama time for his speech on that? (Here, Obama had a harder task - he needed to put his going to Wright's church in perspective. Kerry just needed the media to look at the fact that ALL the evidence backed him. Kerry is a war hero.)
When pointing the media to the official Navy records did not work, Kerry did speak to the issue - and he did so before the Firefighters as soon as it was appear that the attack was beginning to hurt him. Many here - all political junkies didn't here this. Why? The media that gave a huge amount of free time to people they had to know were lying didn't think that it was important to give the Democratic nominees response air time. Now, it was - I think less than 2 minutes long - so there is no excuse.
In any previous election, calmly and professionally countering lies by disproving them would have been the obvious preferred first step - which is what Kerry did. It is only when there is no open and shut case (as there is here) that the candidate would try anything different.
The campaign's immediate reaction to the August attack was to put out 36 pages listing lies and discrepancies in the book. That was done within ONE DAY of the book's emergence in August.(In 2008, the first reaction of the Obama team was to put out 41 pages on lies in Corsi's book.) This should have been sufficient to spike their attack. How many lies are people usually allowed when they are disputing the official record, offering nothing - not one Telex, photo, or record sent upward discussing Kerry as the problem portrayed in the book - as proof. They also later proved the links to Bush - in funding, lawyers, and in one case the B/C people were caught passing it out. In addition, Kerry surrogates including some of his crew, Rassman and Cleland countered it. (Like Kerry, Obama used surrogates against Corsi rather than respond himself)
That was far more proof countering the liars than the Clinton machine ever put out on anything. The problem was that it went to the media and they refused to play the role of evaluating who was telling the truth - the Washington Post's editor even saying they wouldn't. The broadcast media was worse. Would Obama have done as well if the networks and cable TV failed to give coverage to his speech on race in the furor over Reverand Wright?
Many Democrats, including Edwards who was asked to, did little. It wasn't that tey had no ammunition to use. There was an abundance of proof - far more than would be typically available as they hit against a well documented official record. Even before the August re-emergence, the Kerry campaign had already provided the media with more than enough backup for them to reject the August attack out of hand.
It should also be mentioned that it was not Kerry's accounts they disputed, it was the NAVY's official record. Backing the NAVY account over the SBVT, Kerry had the following:
he had 120 pages of naval records - spanning the entire interval with glowing fitness reports - all given to the media and on his web site from April on. That alone should have been enough.
He had every man on his boat for every medal earned 100% behind him. That alone should have been enough.
He had the Nixon administration on tape (that they thought would never be public) saying he was both a genuine war hero and clean, but for political reasons should be destroyed. (SBVT O'Neil was one of those tasked to destroy Kerry in 1971.) That alone should have been enough.
He also was given a plum assignment in Brooklyn as an aide to a rear admiral. From the naval records, this required a higher security clearance - clearly his "employers" of the last 3 years (many SBVT) had to attest to his good character. That's just standard. That alone should have been enough.
The then secretary of the Navy (John Warner) said he personally had reviewed the Silver Star Award. That alone should have been enough.
still_one
(92,141 posts)Have been covered. The media was making this a huge issue, they would have jumped at the chance.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)it. They also did not cover an April press conference in response to the first sighting of the SBVT and which led to Kerry putting several hundred pages of Navy records on his web site.
Note that Obama did not have a Rev Wright press conference, but a speech. In both cases, a speech is more controlled.
still_one
(92,141 posts)Disagree, they did not make enough waves to be heard
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/17/team-obama-responds-to-special-ops-criticisms-via-john-kerry/
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)...emulatorloo. Kerry had almost zero support to fight them. The media coverage of his entire campaign was despicable and incompetent.
Senator Kerry learned the lesson from that...fight and fight LOUDLY. I hope the media learned to tell the truth, for a change.
SleeplessinSoCal
(9,110 posts)Heather MC
(8,084 posts)with a,message saying, this is why we need to vote Obama out. I just eye rolled and passed. but if I were to say offer a,comment just to set the record straight what should I say? By the way as far as Right leaning people go he is one of the nicest people I know.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)President Obama announced it to the country, after the fact and even after Bin Laden's body was disposed of and after all the Special Ops personnel were safely out of the country. I'm sure you can find many links to prove your point. They can't find any, because other than this there is nothing out there.
Remind them this man wasn't part of the operation. And if you can find any proof of this guy's character offer it to them.
Discredit him.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)I recently worked on a report on DC's Metrorail security and there was NOTHING I found in my research that was specific about threats or people making threats, how many undercover security agents there are, where security screening and scanning technology is placed and so on. All information that is publicly accessible is very general and deliberately so.
In 2010, the FBI carried out a sting operation that netted Farooq Ahmed, who thought he was communicating with al-Qaeda (but it was actually the FBI) regarding blowing up several Metrorail stations. There were absolutely no leaks about the sting until the story came out that Ahmed was arrested and indicted. (He later pled guilty and is serving 23 yrs. in jail).
If DC Metrorail security operations are indicative of the "leaks" caused by this administration, there ARE NONE. The specifics are apparently classified, and for good reason.
Heather MC
(8,084 posts)"This is a very funny video, I predict it will fall into the same Archives that has Video PROOF of Pres. Clinton Killing people."
Rozlee
(2,529 posts)outing by Dick Cheny. She had numerous assets overseas whose lives were threatened and her operations and assignments were put to a stop. One of those assignments, if I'm not mistaken, was monitoring the sales of nuclear material from Pakistan to Iran. Plus, they're spreading disinformation to a public they know has no knowledge of military tactics and and what constitutes classified information. My husband is a retired 0-9 and tells me that OPSEC is being totally bogus about their claims of exposing the SEALs base. The SEALs' permanent base is no secret and any base they have for a temporary assignment is taken down after the completion of that assignment, so no lives are put in danger by revealing where it's at. Their method of raid was a basic Entebbe type on a smaller scale with no "secret method" that will alert the enemy so that it can never be used again. It was so pat, spy novels have done it to death. But, it worked because the bad guys couldn't be on guard 100% after ten years. But, it might be a waste of time to tell your wingnut friend that. I have a teabagger relative myself that will stick her fingers in her ears and "la-la-la" me out.
billky
(159 posts)avebury
(10,952 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)protecting Americans from terrorist threats.
The only people moved by the Republicans' swift boat attack this time are the die-hard Republicans.
I think Obama is answering back hard and fast on this one and handling it very well. The Republicans are just wasting their money on this ploy.
neeksgeek
(1,214 posts)But, one important distinction between the Swift Boat ad and the OPSEC ad is that the events Kerry took part in during the Vietnam War happened 35 years before he ran for President. Obama's administration is being criticized for something they accomplished very recently, something related to events that are still clearly remembered. It raises the question, 'If the Republicans are so much stronger on defense than Obama, why didn't George W. Bush manage to get Bin Laden?'* They're clutching at straws. I don't believe this will stick.
*Slightly conspiratorial/theoretical answer to my question - Because Bush did not want to get Bin Laden.
FedUpWithIt All
(4,442 posts)politicasista
(14,128 posts)The Senator must have did something right cause some haters/trolls are out in about.
How dare Senator Kerry help Obama and speak at the DNC! Must be why some are so scurred.