Nick Coleman, columnist for the Star Tribune, calls it the
Swift Boating of Iraq. Hesiod calls it
Swift Boating in Reverse. Whatever you want to call it, it's a piece of sh*t and it's still stinking up the airwaves in Minnesota.
You can see the ad for yourself.
The CBS affiliate in Minneapolis, WCCO, runs this ad several times a day. I saw it myself at least three times yesterday. Other networks are also running it, but I think WCCO should be targeted because of this: WCCO pulls ad critical of Pawlenty. Tim Pawlenty is our Republican governor.
WCCO pulled the radio spot because they couldn't substantiate it's claims. My question is this: was the 'Swift Boat' ad put to the same fact checking as the Pawlenty ad? Nick Coleman draws the same conclusion I did after watching the spot [emphasis mine]:
So the ad is simply not true.
I wrote the letter below to station manager Trey Fabacher on Sunday. I haven't yet received a response. One guy, a nobody like me, is easy to ignore. Ten or twenty is harder. I'm asking dKos members to email him and ask him the simple question:
Why was an ad placed by a progressive group put to a higher standard than one placed by a right wing group?
Here's his contact info:
WCCO station manager:
Mr. Trey Fabacher
tfabacher@wcco.cbs.com
The claims in the ad are easy to refute. See my letter below, my initial diary on the subject, Hesiod's diary and Nick Coleman's piece in the Strib for ammunition.
My Letter to Mr. Fabacher:
Dear Mr. Fabacher:
I am writing in response to an ad I saw on WCCO last Friday. The ad ran twice within a short period during the 10 o'clock news and David Letterman. This ad was paid for by the Progress for America Voter Fund (PFA), a far right wing organization with a history of deceptive and misleading advertising campaigns, including links to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
The ad makes several claims which are misleading at best and outright deceptions at the worst.
Claim: "The media only reports the bad news, but American troops are making real progress, securing free elections and defending our country from radical Al Qaeda terrorists who want to destroy America, starting in Iraq."
Fact: Almost 3 years after the invasion, the country's electrical system is worse than it was before the invasion, and it was bad then.
Fact: Despite several rounds of elections, insurgent attacks have continued to climb each month and each year of the occupation.
Fact: According to an audit from the U.S State Department's Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, most Iraqi Reconstruction projects will never be completed.
Claim: "But our enemy in Iraq is al-Qaeda, the same terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans on 9-11, the same terrorists from the first World Trade Center bombing, the USS Cole, Madrid, London and many more."
Fact: According to the CIA, there was no connection between 9-11 and Iraq.
Fact: The number of Iraqi insurgency is estimated as high as 200,000. The only known al Qaeda group operating in Iraq, al-Zarqawi's Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad has, according to U.S. estimates, only a few hundred members.
Claim: "American Troops overwhelmingly support the mission President Bush has given us."
Fact: Polls show show the troops' approval of the war in Iraq, like all Americans, has been on the decline. It is currently just over 50%, hardly overwhelming support.
We see many soldiers returning from Iraq publicly questioning President Bush's policies and, specifically, the notion that the war in Iraq is somehow making us safer. Iraq war vets such as Paul Hackett, running for Senate in Ohio, have vigorously questioned war's execution and called for an exit strategy. Decorated Vietnam War vet, and hawkish Democratic congressman, John Murtha has said the Iraq war has weakened our military and made America less safe. And, lest we think these criticisms are purely partisan, Vietnam vet and Republican Senator from Nebraska, Chuck Hagel, called for an exit strategy last August: "We should start figuring out how we get out of there, I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East."
I couldn't help but notice that last week WCCO radio refused to run an ad placed by Alliance for a Better Minnesota, a group critical of Governor Pawlenty, because the claims couldn't be substantiated. While the spot was eventually cleared to run, it begs the question: Was the PFA ad put to the same test as the Alliance for a Better Minnesota ad? If not, why? WCCO's television unit should have at least as high a standard for truth in advertising as the radio station. Particularly when images can have such a potent impact.
WCCO should pull the PFA ad. It is full of unsubstantiated claims, misdirection and blatant fabrications.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
etc. etc.
UPDATE: Hesiod has
another great diary about this. Please go there, read and recommend. It has more ammunition for your email to Mr. Fabacher.