The latest spin all over today’s airwaves are that the Swiftboat Vets’ “ads are unfounded.”
What does that actually mean? That is, the remark, ongoing throughout the day today and yesterday, by Kerry apologists on the airwaves, that goes like this:
“The ads are unfounded (and President Bush needs to denounce the ads).”
Examine the language. How can an “ad” be “unfounded.”
The most telling aspect to this Kerry charade about his self-endowed history, that is being ignored from most discussions, is the fact that Kerry hasn’t sued the authors of the “ads” but has, rather, threatened to sue the publisher of the book (“Unfit for Command”), has threatened to sue the retailers selling the book and threatened to sue the stations who broadcast the “ads” by the Swiftvets.
For obvious reasons, Kerry can’t counter the actual statements made by the Swiftvets — if he was to present a lawsuit against the authors, he’d then have to prove that they were wrong (or guilty of liable about him), so he’s trying to counter everyone who hears or sees them (or both), anyone and everyone who isn’t voting for Kerry…the list goes on and on, but Kerry, in a nutshell, is attacking everyone and anyone except the actual authors of the “ads” themselves.
Telephoning people who speak out — applying pressure, I suppose he thinks — sending various Democrats throughout the media to accuse (quite irrationally) President Bush, while encouraging and even laughing about the Left extremist use of advertising and media to attack Bush, attack the nation, attack, attack, attack…threaten, malign, threaten, attack. I’m surprised he isn’t sueing or threatening to sue the sun for showing light.
“When we dedicated swift boat one in ’92, I said to all the swift guys that I wasn’t talking about the swifties, I was talking about all the rest of the veterans.”
So, alright, it’s the veterans now, who he was and is “talking about.”
Was that before the U.S. Senate when Kerry testified as to “war crimes?” Or was that about the “ads” that are “unfounded”?
Former Michigan Senator Don Riegle (D) appeared on FOX earlier today — the latest angry Democrat railing on about veterans — and said, “they’re attacking Kerry’s war record and it’s sleazy. It’s disgusting and the President ought to get rid of it.”
President Bush isn’t responsible for the “ads” — a President calling a citizen up and telling them not to speak out with their opinions would be the real offense, and it’s foretelling about Kerry that he would even suggest a President do something such as that. As in, I am assuming Kerryn would take such actions. Dictators do, too.
The reality of this situation seems to fly over the heads of Democrats, or, they are determined to continue to emphasize their irrational distortions about these “ads” — there’s a “Democrat Strategist” at this very moment on FOX saying that “the President was back home here skipping out on his war service” (while Kerry, he alleges, was “serving in the military”). The Democrats can not not denigrate President Bush with this sort of attack rhetoric and can not not parade John Kerry as a “war hero” and various outrageous exaggerations of that theme, and yet they can not focus on any one foothold that gives them leverage.
Because even John Kerry’s own diary proves his chronology of his “wounds” inaccurate, much less the testimony of the Swiftvets about that and other issues from their service experiences.
And, Howard Dean appears to be insane (well, isn’t he?) with his latest missive: that President Bush “broke the law” with “these ads,” when Bush isn’t responsible for the ads, nor is his campaign. Dean’s an educated person, he should have the cognitive capacity to understand that. With a physician like that, who needs enemies.
With a mate like Kerry, the Vietnam vets didn’t need the North Vietnamese. Kerry did their work for them, and still is.
So, the “ads are unfounded.” Ummm, no, they aren’t; an “unfounded ad” I have yet to view.