Print media ignoring the Kerry Vietnam controversy-why?

[igloo]

Newsweek's comic-book Kerry coverage

Brent Bozell (archive)

August 18, 2004 | Print | Send

The week after the Democratic convention, two of the nation's three largest news magazines, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report, had fun with two-page photo spreads emphasizing the Democratic nominee's acceptance speech opener: "I'm John Kerry, And I'm Reporting for Duty."

But by the morning of Kerry's speech, the critics of Kerry's military tenure at Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were again knocking at the door of the national press corps, pounding on what they insist are holes the size of meteor craters in Kerry's stories of jut-jawed heroism in Vietnam.

By now, most of America has heard of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and their book, titled "Unfit for Command," which quickly rose to No. 1 at Amazon.com. Talk radio is chewing it over from coast to coast. Cable news viewers have watched a number of debates with these Kerry comrades on CNN, MSNBC and Fox. But if you were to receive all of your news from Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report, you wouldn't know one solitary thing about them. The censorship has been complete.

Why does this happen? How do the cream of the liberal media crop have the audacity to declare by their actions that the Kerry comrades that support their superhero Kerry are credible, and should be given endless license to boast of his virtues, while those who knew him in Vietnam as less than a hero are to be ignored?

In February, when the story was George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard, Bush's most prominent accusers weren't his colleagues in the Texas Guard. They were Terry McAuliffe and Michael Moore, political hatchet men who were given an immediate and warm reception by the press. So why are the Swift Boat veterans automatically disqualified from the major media?

On "Fox News Sunday," long-time TV journalist Brit Hume had a different take on the Swift Vets book: "It is full of detail. It is full of specifics. The charges that are being made of Kerry, of irresponsible and, indeed in some cases, mendacious conduct in his service in Vietnam, are made by people who were there. They're making the charges in their own names ... this isn't a bunch of anonymous people whispering things. It's all out there in the open. The book is full of footnotes. It has an appendix. It's a pretty serious piece of work." He declared it deserved as much attention as the piles of February media stories on Bush's service.

That final point is especially true considering how the news magazines harped on Kerry's heroism, and his "Band of Brothers" and their crucial role in his rise to the top of the liberal Democrat heap.

In February, Newsweek's Howard Fineman touted: "His advocates are the men who served under his command of Swift Boats in the Mekong Delta -- one of whom, Jim Rassman, Kerry saved by hoisting him out of the Bay Hap River under enemy fire. Rassman's unscripted appearance in Des Moines was worth millions of ads and months of strategy." (So, you could add, are syrupy articles in Newsweek.)

Fineman added that "delighted" top Kerry strategist Bob Shrum had presented Rassman with a copy of liberal historian Douglas Brinkley's Kerry war-hero hagiography "Tour of Duty" with the inscription, "To Jim, who fished us out of the river."

So where is Fineman now to interview the other veterans on the other Swift Boats? The Swift Boat veterans opposing Kerry say there was no enemy fire as Rassman was pulled out of the river, meaning Fineman may have forwarded a myth in front of millions of readers by helpfully accepting whatever the Democratic candidate and his buddy said on the stump.

In Newsweek, as late as the August 2 issue, reporters were still oozing like kids reading a comic book. "Kerry's coolness under fire was remarkable," they claimed. "It is hard to forget the image of his turning his boat around and reaching over the bow to pull -- with a wounded arm -- a man from the water while the bullets splattered around them." They declared "Kerry's war record has been endlessly discussed and picked over" -- a ridiculous assertion given the major media's silence about Kerry's critics.

Kerry has been caught in fibs on his Vietnam service -- for example, how the anti-Kerry veterans exposed his long-standing claim that he was serving in Cambodia during Christmas in 1968, a claim contradicted by the facts. Yet the media still just whistle right past it, even as Kerry admits error and Douglas Brinkley prepares another correction for his paperback edition.

Our media aren't judging the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth based on the quality of their facts. They're judging them on the seriousness of their threat to the media's ultimate goal: putting John Kerry in the White House.

[jtk4]

because he was there, with his ass on the line. End of story, I do not give a fuck if the medals are bullshit. HE WAS THERE.

[igloo]

because he was there, with his ass on the line. End of story, I do not give a fuck if the medals are bullshit. HE WAS THERE.

Missing the point son.....big time

Kerry is trying to have it both ways.....if you can't see that, you are blind...

He gets all the credit in the world for doing something that plenty of people did not.....He gets all the credit in the world for serving and volunteering....he gets all the credit for serving his country during his TIME IN VIETNAM

But to ignore what happened when he returned is ridiculous, and how that served the country and his comrades still incountry is absurd...ESPECIALLY for those who also served.........If they want to speak out against that, they have every right.....

Kerry is trying to run on the fact that he served, and ignore what happened afterwards (except when he has admitted that "looking back" he would not have said some of the things he said with respects to his blanket accusations of war crimes)....can't have it both ways.....

Also, I don't care what side of the fence you sit for this election, you can't ignore the fact that many areas of his record that seem to be shady, and there are discrepancies in the things he has said (i.e. Christmas in Cambodia)........Maybe he is lying, maybe those speaking out against them are lying......maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle...

Either way, it is an issue.......brought on by kerry and his strategy....

Now, I was just wondering if TIME, NEWSWEEK and the others are going to add to their 6 month pounding of Bush's dental records........get it?

[BRIANC1046]

no he served.. end of story..

Missing the point son.....big time

Kerry is trying to have it both ways.....if you can't see that, you are blind...

He gets all the credit in the world for doing something that plenty of people did not.....He gets all the credit in the world for serving and volunteering....he gets all the credit for serving his country during his TIME IN VIETNAM

But to ignore what happened when he returned is ridiculous, and how that served the country and his comrades still incountry is absurd...ESPECIALLY for those who also served.........If they want to speak out against that, they have every right.....

Kerry is trying to run on the fact that he served, and ignore what happened afterwards (except when he has admitted that "looking back" he would not have said some of the things he said with respects to his blanket accusations of war crimes)....can't have it both ways.....

Also, I don't care what side of the fence you sit for this election, you can't ignore the fact that many areas of his record that seem to be shady, and there are discrepancies in the things he has said (i.e. Christmas in Cambodia)........Maybe he is lying, maybe those speaking out against them are lying......maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle...

Either way, it is an issue.......brought on by kerry and his strategy....

Now, I was just wondering if TIME, NEWSWEEK and the others are going to add to their 6 month pounding of Bush's dental records........get it?

[igloo]

no he served.. end of story..

You are wrong and blind.....end of story

[BRIANC1046]

that article did not mention what happened afterwards at all.. it was another attack from a conservative journalist to Kerry's military credibility..

honestly, no one cares about this anymore.. I really truly think it makes Bush look worse.. there are so many more important things to question Kerry on..

The main guy for the Swift boat Veterans for Truth is a major Republican contributer that donated $1,000 to George Sr.. I'm sure he has a biased view..

Missing the point son.....big time

Kerry is trying to have it both ways.....if you can't see that, you are blind...

He gets all the credit in the world for doing something that plenty of people did not.....He gets all the credit in the world for serving and volunteering....he gets all the credit for serving his country during his TIME IN VIETNAM

But to ignore what happened when he returned is ridiculous, and how that served the country and his comrades still incountry is absurd...ESPECIALLY for those who also served.........If they want to speak out against that, they have every right.....

Kerry is trying to run on the fact that he served, and ignore what happened afterwards (except when he has admitted that "looking back" he would not have said some of the things he said with respects to his blanket accusations of war crimes)....can't have it both ways.....

Also, I don't care what side of the fence you sit for this election, you can't ignore the fact that many areas of his record that seem to be shady, and there are discrepancies in the things he has said (i.e. Christmas in Cambodia)........Maybe he is lying, maybe those speaking out against them are lying......maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle...

Either way, it is an issue.......brought on by kerry and his strategy....

Now, I was just wondering if TIME, NEWSWEEK and the others are going to add to their 6 month pounding of Bush's dental records........get it?

[BRIANC1046]

Is this really ALL George Bush has on Kerry? If it is he's in big trouble!

Give it up.. He served.. End of Story

[jtk4]

all i am saying is he was 22 years old, and did not have to serve. He could of went the national guard route, or the driving around taxas and drinking route ( ). BEFORE kerry went to vietnam, he won the Ten Eyck prize for best orator at Yale for a speech criticizing the US and its foreign policy (done in 1965, almost a full 3 years before he started his tour in 'Nam). Even after that he still went. Maybe some of the things are shady but it has been 40 years, memories tend to change imbelished over that time.

I do not think the mags pick it up 1 because they are liberal and 2 the info against is shady at best.

Don't get me wrong if there was shady bush info they would plaster it, even if it was wrong and i think that is the point of the article, but to say anything bad about kerry and his war record when bush didn't even go is wrong.

[sobeton]

talk about beating a dead horse. Kerry served honorably and stayed true to his belief that the war was wrong. there are many Vietnam Vets who did the same; just as there are many Vets who did not. the more often this is brought up the less significance it has..

[igloo]

talk about beating a dead horse. Kerry served honorably and stayed true to his belief that the war was wrong. there are many Vietnam Vets who did the same; just as there are many Vets who did not. the more often this is brought up the less significance it has..

Should we just revert too our battle in drama ...lol

Anyway, it does have meaning to many people.....in particular, to those who served.....

And it does have meaning to voters, because Kerry is RUNNING ON A VIETNAM platform.......and when he does that, it is all inclusive, not just what the pro-Kerry camp wants to hear or wants the voters to know

What the fuck is so hard for you guys to understand?......I understand you are anti-Bush and may be pro-Kerry.....but you can be a little objective about this...

Once again, Kerry gets all the credit in the world for serving, no one is doubting that.....but his behavior afterwards, and the conflicting stories straight from his mouth is certainly worthy of inspection (including by TIME AND NEWSWEEK)......Just imagine if Bush and Kerry reversed roles here....think about the media frenzy

And you mention beating a dead horse.......Bush's dental records for 6 months, was not?

[igloo]

all i am saying is he was 22 years old, and did not have to serve. He could of went the national guard route, or the driving around taxas and drinking route ( ). BEFORE kerry went to vietnam, he won the Ten Eyck prize for best orator at Yale for a speech criticizing the US and its foreign policy (done in 1965, almost a full 3 years before he started his tour in 'Nam). Even after that he still went. Maybe some of the things are shady but it has been 40 years, memories tend to change imbelished over that time.

I do not think the mags pick it up 1 because they are liberal and 2 the info against is shady at best.

Don't get me wrong if there was shady bush info they would plaster it, even if it was wrong and i think that is the point of the article, but to say anything bad about kerry and his war record when bush didn't even go is wrong.

It looks like we are agreeing for the most part, but you keep ignoring one fact....Kerry is running on a Vietnam platform, which makes anything 40 years ago until now in play.....and Vietnam veterans are also targeting him...this can't be discounted

Again, there are legitimate questions about that period....they are legitimate....period.

[igloo]

The main guy for the Swift boat Veterans for Truth is a major Republican contributer that donated $1,000 to George Sr.. I'm sure he has a biased view..

You have the same problem with Soros and the deplorable moveon.org

[sobeton]

Should we just revert too our battle in drama ...lol

Anyway, it does have meaning to many people.....in particular, to those who served.....

And it does have meaning to voters, because Kerry is RUNNING ON A VIETNAM platform.......and when he does that, it is all inclusive, not just what the pro-Kerry camp wants to hear or wants the voters to know

What the fuck is so hard for you guys to understand?......I understand you are anti-Bush and may be pro-Kerry.....but you can be a little objective about this...

Once again, Kerry gets all the credit in the world for serving, no one is doubting that.....but his behavior afterwards, and the conflicting stories straight from his mouth is certainly worthy of inspection (including by TIME AND NEWSWEEK)......Just imagine if Bush and Kerry reversed roles here....think about the media frenzy

And you mention beating a dead horse.......Bush's dental records for 6 months, was not?

there is a particular segment of Vets that disagrees with Kerry’s behavior. I made that clear in my previous post. I’m sure there is also a portion of voters, which have an unfavorable opinion of Kerry based on his Vietnam activities, etc.

his military records have been released. his behavior after serving in Vietnam, he has spoken about on several occasions.

there has been NO hard evidence presented by "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" to support their claims.

if there where anything left to investigate, I’m sure some media outlet would have done it by now.

he served and that’s it. the media is done with this story for the most part, and so are a majority of the voters. if Kerry’s Vietnam record and activities are unfavorable in a voters eyes; then don’t vote for him. seems pretty simple if you ask me.

IMO we need to get to discussing real issues the voters really care about like Iraq, Terrorism, The Economy, etc.

[igloo]

there is a particular segment of Vets that disagrees with Kerry’s behavior. I made that clear in my previous post. I’m sure there is also a portion of voters, which have an unfavorable opinion of Kerry based on his Vietnam activities, etc.

his military records have been released. his behavior after serving in Vietnam, he has spoken about on several occasions.

there has been NO hard evidence presented by "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" to support their claims.

if there where anything left to investigate, I’m sure some media outlet would have done it by now.

he served and that’s it. the media is done with this story for the most part, and so are a majority of the voters. if Kerry’s Vietnam record and activities are unfavorable in a voters eyes; then don’t vote for him. seems pretty simple if you ask me.

IMO we need to get to discussing real issues the voters really care about like Iraq, Terrorism, The Economy, etc.

There has been hard evidence provided...which has caused Kerry to "alter" some things....and fight others...........don't say there is no evidence, because then you are calling 'Swift Boat" liars, and that is just wrong....

In terms of something to investigate----I think that is the overriding point of this original article---why is not Time and Newsweek devoting more time to investigating this, especially since they donated so much time to Bush's teeth.......obvious bias.........this is a story, whether you like it or not, and ordinarily, the print media would be relentless on something like this...

And I disagree with you that the voters don't care...maybe those who are already entrenched don't care....but I saw a poll of independent voters today who say the issue is real for them......which makes this issue enormous because of how close the election is going to be...

I would like to see the election focus on the real issues..........but as long as Kerry answers every CIC question with "Vietnam and three purple hearts", the issue will remain....As long as the DNC keeps showing pictures of Kerry in Vietnam, the issue will remain.....

I would also like to see 527's to cease and desist, especially moveon.org......I wonder why there was not the hysteria against them for their deplorable ads and baseless accusations against Bush.....

[sobeton]

There has been hard evidence provided...which has caused Kerry to "alter" some things....and fight others...........don't say there is no evidence, because then you are calling 'Swift Boat" liars, and that is just wrong....

In terms of something to investigate----I think that is the overriding point of this original article---why is not Time and Newsweek devoting more time to investigating this, especially since they donated so much time to Bush's teeth.......obvious bias.........this is a story, whether you like it or not, and ordinarily, the print media would be relentless on something like this...

And I disagree with you that the voters don't care...maybe those who are already entrenched don't care....but I saw a poll of independent voters today who say the issue is real for them......which makes this issue enormous because of how close the election is going to be...

I would like to see the election focus on the real issues..........but as long as Kerry answers every CIC question with "Vietnam and three purple hearts", the issue will remain....As long as the DNC keeps showing pictures of Kerry in Vietnam, the issue will remain.....

I would also like to see 527's to cease and desist, especially moveon.org......I wonder why there was not the hysteria against them for their deplorable ads and baseless accusations against Bush.....

where is the hard evidence

[igloo]

where is the hard evidence

Well for one--the book by O"Neill........you can't possibly think that entire book is nothing but lies, do you?.....or the Veterans who have made claims against Kerry--are they all lying?.......I believe there has been plenty of data posted recently about the evidence.....I guess depending on where one sits, "evidence" is defined differently.....

And the Cambodia story--Kerry said one thing, and apparently now he is altering things......or how about Kerry's testimony before Congress where he leveled broad accusations of war crimes, including admitting he committed war crimes.......well, he now says he regrets saying those things and was reckless.....also, if he admitted to war crimes--why no investigation of those crimes?

I suspect, the truth probably falls somewhere in the middle.......and that still means Kerry is being shady about certain things, and brings questions about his character, and it is an issue worth exploring....if the roles were reversed, the media and the antiBush brigade would be in a frenzy (and you won't admit it to me, but I am sure you know that--they were in a frenzy about his teeth!).

[jtk4]

"As long as the DNC keeps showing pictures of Kerry in Vietnam, the issue will remain....."

ahh he was in vietnam. Like i said i do not care what these swift boat people say. He was there, he came back. I guess the things he said that he is trying to back up on, i mean look at it like this. He was 22 and just spent 4 months watching 18 year olds getting their arms and legs blown off. Maybe he said some shit then he regrets now. I will not hold that against him.

Now i have not really heard what the swift boat people said, are the questioning his medals? Or are they pissed because of the shit he said when he got out?

[jtk4]

wait what happened to bush's teeth?

[sobeton]

Well for one--the book by O"Neill........you can't possibly think that entire book is nothing but lies, do you?.....or the Veterans who have made claims against Kerry--are they all lying?.......I believe there has been plenty of data posted recently about the evidence.....I guess depending on where one sits, "evidence" is defined differently.....

And the Cambodia story--Kerry said one thing, and apparently now he is altering things......or how about Kerry's testimony before Congress where he leveled broad accusations of war crimes, including admitting he committed war crimes.......well, he now says he regrets saying those things and was reckless.....also, if he admitted to war crimes--why no investigation of those crimes?

I suspect, the truth probably falls somewhere in the middle.......and that still means Kerry is being shady about certain things, and brings questions about his character, and it is an issue worth exploring....if the roles were reversed, the media and the antiBush brigade would be in a frenzy (and you won't admit it to me, but I am sure you know that--they were in a frenzy about his teeth!).

the cambodia mission story if I’m not mistaken involved particular dates. I believe Kerry said it was around christmas time; however it was really around the beginning of january. nothing starling about confusing dates. in his testimony before the senate (you should really read the transcript it's online) he spoke of crimes described by fellow veterans who opposed the war. he never admitted committing war crimes. why would you incriminate yourself by admitting to a war crime; which you could be imprisoned for? doesn’t seem very rationale to me. Kerry has always maintained, when he testified his choice of words was poor, but he stood behind the claims he raised.

you are probably right the truth probably falls somewhere in the middle, and I would say the same with regard to swift boat veterans for truth claims. is Kerry being a bit shady and vague? I would say so. conversely the same can be said of Bush. they both have questionable character traits IMO..

I know you won’t believe this, but I’m not interested Bush’s military service. he served and that’s it. once again Iraq, Terrorism, The Economy, etc are more important to me then Kerry’s Vietnam days or Bush’s teeth, etc.

[jtk4]

what the fuck is up with his teeth?

[jtk4]

We really have to move on, I do not think that this is relivent to the elections real issues.

[bigpoppanils]

especially moveon.org......I wonder why there was not the hysteria against them for their deplorable ads and baseless accusations against Bush.....

erm...in case you havent noticed, Kerry condemned their recent ad campaign questioning Bush's war record.

as for Swift Boat Veterans, keep in mind that thier funding comes from the same people who smeared McCain with charges of fathering illegitimate children, voting for tax hikes, that he was secretly pro-abortion and gay.

[BRIANC1046]

The Bush teeth story came out in February.. most people don't have any idea about what the story is.. you know what ..most people like I don't even care.. Don't try to compare the story on Bush's teeth to the attack on Kerry's military credibility.. Doesn't even compare..

you don't see Democrats talking about Bush's teeth because there are so many better things to attack Bush with!

Here's a fact for ya.. Kerry has 3 purple hearts.. Your not going to take them away from him.. If you look on johnkerry.com you will see the actual forms of reccomendations.. Each award was reccomended by a few different officers and each was signed with plenty of witness's.. That is a fact.. It SHOULD not be argued or questioned..

what could be questioned is if these purple hearts and his military experience prepare him to be Commander and Chief and do they prove he will be tough on national security..

And yes.. Like Bigpoppanilis stated.. The Swift boat veterans are funded from the same people that attacked Mccain's credibility on a number of issues.. I don't find them credible..

And I agree with Sobeton.. "the more often this is brought up the less significance it has".. I love to argue this issue.. it hurts the Bush campaign SO much! It just makes people wonder time and time again.. Kerry was in Vietnam while Bush was where?.. and he has the nerve to question him?!

let me leave you with this article once again..

[BRIANC1046]

Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush

by Jim Rassmann | Aug 10 '04

I came to know Lt. John Kerry during the spring of 1969. He and his swift boat crew assisted in inserting our Special Forces team and our Chinese Nung soldiers into operational sites in the Cau Mau Peninsula of South Vietnam. I worked with him on many operations and saw firsthand his leadership, courage and decision-making ability under fire.

On March 13, 1969, John Kerry's courage and leadership saved my life.

While returning from a SEA LORDS operation along the Bay Hap River, a mine detonated under another swift boat. Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river, and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.

When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.

For his actions that day, I recommended John for the Silver Star, our country's third highest award for bravery under fire. I learned only this past January that the Navy awarded John the Bronze Star with Combat V for his valor. The citation for this award, signed by the Commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam, Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, read, "Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service." To this day I am grateful to John Kerry for saving my life. And to this day I still believe that he deserved the Silver Star for his courage.

It has been many years since I served in Vietnam. I returned home, got married, and spent many years as a deputy sheriff for Los Angeles County. I retired in 1989 as a lieutenant. It has been a long time since I left Vietnam, but I think often of the men who did not come home with us.

I am neither a politician nor an organizer. I am a retired police officer with a passion for orchids. Until January of this year, the only public presentations I made were about my orchid hobby. But in this presidential election, I had to speak out; I had to tell the American people about John Kerry, about his wisdom and courage, about his vision and leadership. I would trust John Kerry with my life, and I would entrust John Kerry with the well-being of our country.

Nobody asked me to join John's campaign. Why would they? I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans. I volunteered for his campaign because I have seen John Kerry in the worst of conditions. I know his character. I've witnessed his bravery and leadership under fire. And I truly know he will be a great commander in chief.

Now, 35 years after the fact, some Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Bush are suddenly lying about John Kerry's service in Vietnam; they are calling him a traitor because he spoke out against the Nixon administration's failed policies in Vietnam. Some of these Republican-sponsored veterans are the same ones who spoke out against John at the behest of the Nixon administration in 1971. But this time their attacks are more vicious, their lies cut deep and are directed not just at John Kerry, but at me and each of his crewmates as well. This hate-filled ad asserts that I was not under fire; it questions my words and Navy records. This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency, people who don't understand the bond of those who serve in combat.

As John McCain noted, the television ad aired by these veterans is "dishonest and dishonorable." Sen. McCain called on President Bush to condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush ad. Regrettably, the president has ignored Sen. McCain's advice.

Does this strategy of attacking combat Vietnam veterans sound familiar? In 2000, a similar Republican smear campaign was launched against Sen. McCain. In fact, the very same communications group, Spaeth Communications, that placed ads against John McCain in 2000 is involved in these vicious attacks against John Kerry. Texas Republican donors with close ties to George W. Bush and Karl Rove crafted this "dishonest and dishonorable" ad. Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam. They insult and defame all of us who served in Vietnam.

But when the noise and fog of their distortions and lies have cleared, a man who volunteered to serve his country, a man who showed up for duty when his country called, a man to whom the United States Navy awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, will stand tall and proud. Ultimately, the American people will judge these Swift Boat Veterans for Bush and their accusations. Americans are tired of smear campaigns against those who volunteered to wear the uniform. Swift Boat Veterans for Bush should hang their heads in shame.

[BRIANC1046]

Ten Senior Military Officials Respond to Cheney's Attacks

“We are deeply disappointed by the tone and tenor of President Bush and Vice President Cheney’s personal attacks on John Kerry, a decorated combat veteran who served his country with courage and honor. John Kerry is talking about his plan to address the most pressing issues facing our nation – jobs, the economy, health care, the war on terror, the war in Iraq. George Bush and Dick Cheney have chosen to take their campaign to the gutter. We call on President Bush and Vice President Cheney to stop the irresponsible personal attacks and tell us where they want to take the country. Tell us how they plan to win the peace in Iraq. Tell us how they plan to get us back on track with the war on terror. Tell us where they plan to lead the country. The American people and our troops deserve better.â€

Signed by:

Admiral William J. Crowe (United States Navy, Retired)

Admiral Stansfield Turner (United States Navy, Retired)

General Wesley K. Clark (United States Army, Retired)

General Merrill “Tony†A. McPeak (United States Air Force, Retired)

General Joseph Hoar (United States Marine Corps, Retired)

General Johnnie E. Wilson (United States Army, Retired)

Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn (United States Navy, Retired)

Lieutenant General Claudia J. Kennedy (United States Army, Retired)

Lieutenant General Donald Kerrick (United States Army, Retired)

Lieutenant General Edward D. Baca (United States Army, Retired)