To Dem_Stategist or anyone else with influence

[MichaelHarris]

After watching Pat Buchanan froth at the mouth about John Kerry's testimony tonight on Scarborough Country tonight I realized something. I've known many Vets in my life and many of them have stories of atrocities committed, one comes to mind of a friend of mine running over people with a personnel carrier in a village. With all the evidence available to the campaign about the atrocities committed in Vietnam wouldn't it be wise to answer the new Swift Boat ads with the testimony of the atrocities seen by veterans during the war?

By using this method of rebuttal you show a hero, John Kerry, with the guts to come home and tell the TRUTH about war, no matter how ugly it is.

These Swift Boat ads portray the veterans as incapable of doing the things John Kerry described. Show America the TRUTH, let the Veterans tell the stories today.

Michael Harris

[xcmt]

1. Half the work's been done already.

Tommy Franks was on (I believe) Hannity & Colmes, and Hannity was trying to lure him into bashing Kerry on the atrocities issue. Franks admitted that atrocities and war crimes probably took place, not taking Hannity's bait.

The political problem with getting Vietnam veterans together to compile atrocity stories is that the Republicans can then run a "Look, Kerry's anti-military! He's accusing our beloved military of war crimes!" which then also has the doubled effect of having absolutely nothing to do with the current election.

The Media would run with this like Marion Jones. "Kerry's making criminal charges against the military, and he's trying to distract the American people from the real issues in this election. Does he have no positive message? All he can do is run a smear campaign against the veterans that fought for this country? We'll be in the No Spin Zone with John Fund, Charlie Black, and Tony Blankley next on the O'Reilly Factor!!!! SHUT UP!!"

They'd be better off running the Franks clip somewhere, since 1) the Bush campaign can't discredit their own guy, and 2) the Bush campaign can't smear the military (unless it's Kerry and everyone that served with him).

[xcmt]

2. My own question for Dem_Strategist

A question you asked, in a different thread a few nights ago, was never answered to enough of a satisfactory degree to merit your acknowledgment. It was in reference to the whole Swift Boats issue. It's been bothering me since I read it.

"How do you know what we've been doing behind the scenes?" (paraphrased)


1) Have you been quietly informing journalists of the facts, and organizing a coherent and comprehensive response to the entirety of the Swift Boat movement and all their allegations simultaneously? And that we're not seeing evidence of this until now is because the Kerry campaign didn't want to get into the petty mode of arguing single line by line on a daily basis?

2) Or have you been waiting to form an official and very public response with facts in order to make the Bush campaign, in effect, get in bed with O'Neill and the Swift Boat-ers, defend them, make their media arm defend them, make everybody associated with the Republican reelection effort in politics and media stand behind them by feigning Kerry's weakness, then, when the time is right, pull the proverbial rug out from beneath them and hammer them when it's far too late for them to back off from prior statements and commitments?

Erm, I'm happy to restate these using more punctuation, if that's hard to follow.

[mumon]

3. I agree, but...

it needs to be framed correctly.

Most soldiers served with distinction, and didn't do war crimes or atrocities.

Note: all war crimes are not atrocities. It is an undisputed historical fact that war crimes were more or less widespread (burning down villages of non-combatants was nothing but a war crime). Atrocities existed, too, but were not common.

Most Americans followed orders.

This needs to be framed as "American soldiers did what they had to do, and were acting on behalf of the American people at the instructions of their government."

American soldiers went into harm's way, and survived.

John Kerry survived too, and came back with a strong desire to stop what he saw, and what he saw happening to his fellow soldiers.

There can be no higher honor than that.

[demokatgurrl]

4. Abu Ghraib

Atrocities? Yes, entirely believable.

By the way I am NEW... is there a "real" Dem Strategist posting here? If so I could write him/her a book!

[jimshoes]

5. Welcome to DU demokatgurrl

In a way we're all dem strategists, but to answer your question, there was one actively posting here up till yesterday. Not sure if this person was able to incorporate the things suggested here but don't let that stop you from speaking your mind.

[jarab]

6. Welcome to DU! (n/t)

...O...

[Paradise]

7. welcome demokatgurrl! :) n/t

[MichaelHarris]

10. I agree

It would have to be framed very correctly. Maybe with some sort of statement saying something to the effect "that it's hard for America to bring up this past, and address these issues. My opponent has done just that, forcing America to look at some of it's darkside. With that I would like to introduce the men and women who were there...."

[Paradise]

8. they don't say "war is hell" for nothing! :( n/t

[IdaBriggs]

9. Hasn't this already been done -- with the MOVIES?

You know, those crazy things that make millions of dollars that everyone in the world goes to see. I think Oliver Stone made one. And there may have been one or two others... :think:

[grasswire]

11. argh!

From what I'm reading, this current dustup is making some of these fellows relive the war all over again in their hearts and minds, and it's anguishing. I sure would hate to cause more pain.