Factcheck is behind the times. One of the Swift Boat Veterans against Kerry was supposed to have recanted his story. But now he's saying that he stands by his story, and that the earlier report misquoted him. And the author of the earlier report, a Boston Globe reporter, turns out to also be the author of what seems to be the official Kerry campaign biography.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5.htm
Full Version: Swift Boat Vets Distain John Kerry
That was then and this is now. I have seen and heard more than I want on this trivial swift boat issue. Are any of you the same person you were 35 years ago? Of course not. It's like saying that it's impossible for John Kerry or anyone else to learn from their experiences or improve their character over time, and in this case, a lot of time. It's like saying that it's not allowed for anyone to change their opinion upon receiving updated and more accurate information. The Vietnam war was a tragic mistake. Kerry knew it 35 years ago. We all know it now. This reactionary, anti change mindset seems to be a fundamental part of conservative and neoconservative philosophy.
That's all well and fine there Mr. Roadster, but since Kerry is using Vietnam as a centerpiece of his campaign, all past deeds performed there are fair game. Expect more not less on this issue.
Two of Kerry's three Purple Hearts, Regnery's Swiftvets allege, were from "self-inflicted wounds" (a serious military crime). None had required "an hour's hospitalisation". Kerry's bronze star was for a wound in the "fanny" (as he was running away, one presumes). His Silver Star (one of the highest decorations for gallantry) was for shooting (why mince words? Murdering) a fleeing unarmed teenager dressed only in a loincloth. Forget presidential aspirations; on this evidence, John Kerry should be standing alongside Lynndie England at Fort Bragg, facing court martial.
Two of Kerry's three Purple Hearts, Regnery's Swiftvets allege, were from "self-inflicted wounds" (a serious military crime). None had required "an hour's hospitalisation". Kerry's bronze star was for a wound in the "fanny" (as he was running away, one presumes). His Silver Star (one of the highest decorations for gallantry) was for shooting (why mince words? Murdering) a fleeing unarmed teenager dressed only in a loincloth. Forget presidential aspirations; on this evidence, John Kerry should be standing alongside Lynndie England at Fort Bragg, facing court martial.
So That's Not Cambodia Over There? Sure Looks Like It!
Kerry starts to lay the groundwork for his excuse.
Did decorated Vietnam War veteran John F. Kerry see military action in Cambodia? He says nothing about it on the campaign trail, but he stated it as fact on the floor of the U.S. Senate on March 27, 1986. In that speech, Kerry accused President Ronald Reagan of leading the United States into another Vietnam in Central America, accusing the administration of Nixon-like duplicity and saying that he should recognize it because of his Vietnam experience.
Kerry starts to lay the groundwork for his excuse.
Did decorated Vietnam War veteran John F. Kerry see military action in Cambodia? He says nothing about it on the campaign trail, but he stated it as fact on the floor of the U.S. Senate on March 27, 1986. In that speech, Kerry accused President Ronald Reagan of leading the United States into another Vietnam in Central America, accusing the administration of Nixon-like duplicity and saying that he should recognize it because of his Vietnam experience.
Robert Novak, in Kerry's War Record, pretty much summs up things here. In talking about "Unfit For Duty", he states,
He concludes
The point here is also that the information is out there, and either it must be answered with serious rebuttal, or it will help drag the candidate down.
And no amount of ad hominum attacks on the accusor's character by party hacks, or Huey and others will change things. I still stand by my prediction that as time goes by and the election approaches, the accumulated information on Kerry will be like weights around the ankles of the runner, Kerry.
QUOTE
I have read the book and found it is neither the political propaganda nor the urban legend that its detractors claim. It is a passionate but meticulously researched account of how Kerry went to war, what he did in the war and how he conducted himself after the war. The very serious charges by former comrades deserve answers but so far have produced only ad hominem counterattacks.
Why should details of what Kerry did more than 30 years ago be part of this election campaign? Only because the senator has made them integral to his strategy. Kerry as war hero received more attention at the Democratic National Convention than plans for the future. Thus, what he did in his shortened four months of combat becomes a valid campaign issue.
Why should details of what Kerry did more than 30 years ago be part of this election campaign? Only because the senator has made them integral to his strategy. Kerry as war hero received more attention at the Democratic National Convention than plans for the future. Thus, what he did in his shortened four months of combat becomes a valid campaign issue.
He concludes
QUOTE
"Unfit for Command" sends a devastating message, unless effectively refuted. Perhaps most disturbing are allegations that Kerry's combat decorations are unjustified. His first Purple Heart, the book alleges, was accidentally self-inflicted. His commander, Grant Hibbard, is quoted as saying: "I didn't recommend him for a Purple Heart. Kerry probably wrote up the paperwork and recommended himself." Full release of documents demanded by his critics could settle this claim quickly if it is unwarranted.
The point here is also that the information is out there, and either it must be answered with serious rebuttal, or it will help drag the candidate down.
And no amount of ad hominum attacks on the accusor's character by party hacks, or Huey and others will change things. I still stand by my prediction that as time goes by and the election approaches, the accumulated information on Kerry will be like weights around the ankles of the runner, Kerry.
Sorry to just keep adding on, but here is an article by a Law Professor, and a fellow lawyer. In Legal Terrorism, they not only point out the truths with regard to the accusations leveled by the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", but the legal implications should the Kerry campaign lawyers follow through with legal action against either the above mentioned group, OR those members of the news media who aire the group's advertisement.
I'm going long here on the quote, but it is important to read what the legal mind has to say about the threats posed by the two Kerry lawyers who leveled the threats.
This just buttresses my above post by Robert Novak. The more the Kerry camp attempts to squeeze out of the charge, AND the louder it shouts about the credibility of the accussors, the more negative attention it generates.
And any legal action only casts a more focused light upon the candidate.
Only one thing will be left to attempt, but it too will be counter productive. When the Kerry camp begins to produce the fruits of their "anal exam" of the accusors, they will not only be exposing the subject's potential "dirty laundry", but their own sleezy techniques as well. Had they done nothing initially, the hits would have been taken, and the incident would be on the way to being forgotten. Now, if will continue until after the November general election.
I'm going long here on the quote, but it is important to read what the legal mind has to say about the threats posed by the two Kerry lawyers who leveled the threats.
QUOTE
First, any statement made in the TV spot that is an “opinion”—e.g., Kerry’s “account of what happened and what actually happened are the difference between night and day” [Chenoweth]; Kerry “lacks the capacity to lead” [Lonsdale]; Kerry “betrayed all his shipmates . . . . “ [Hibbard]—cannot constitute libel. Only the false statement of facts are capable of being libelous.
Second, many of the factual statements are utterly benign, and thus could never be actionable. For example, “I served with John Kerry” [French, Elder, Hildreth]. That leaves factual statements like Hibbard’s: Kerry “lied before the Senate.” In libel law, truth is an absolute defense. If, for example, it is true that Kerry “lied before the Senate,” that Kerry “has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam” [Elliott], that Kerry “is lying about his record” [French], and that Kerry “lied to get his Bronze Star” [O’Dell], Kerry has no case for libel.
Third, even without the absolute defense of truth, Kerry, as a public official, has a constitutionally required burden of proof in a libel case to produce evidence showing that the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth witnesses either knew their statements were false, or recklessly disregarded knowledge of falsity. Kerry’s lawyers must realize their client can never satisfy this burden of proof.
For these reasons, and others, the democrat lawyers’ threatening letter to TV station managers was an unconscionable attempt to protect their candidate from the damning truths spoken by Vietnam veterans who have earned the right to exercise their First Amendment freedom of speech.
To their credit, TV stations in some marketplaces have refused to surrender to the bullying tactics of Kerry’s lawyers. This presents the democrat party and the Kerry campaign with two choices: put up or shut up.
They can slink off the field for having threatened TV stations with a baseless libel lawsuit, or, despite how they eventually hedge their threat, they can actually sue those TV stations that aren’t intimidated.
The latter course would be utter disaster—and Kerry’s lawyers have to know this. Kerry would no longer be able to hide behind spin masters. He would have to file a written complaint. Sworn depositions (including Kerry’s) would have to be taken. He would have to respond to requests for factual admissions. He would have to answer written interrogatories. He would have to produce documents.
There would have to be a trial. That means sworn testimony, cross examination, documentary evidence—all in front of a jury, reporters, perhaps even TV cameras.
Once all that happened, America would know who told the truth—and who lied.
Second, many of the factual statements are utterly benign, and thus could never be actionable. For example, “I served with John Kerry” [French, Elder, Hildreth]. That leaves factual statements like Hibbard’s: Kerry “lied before the Senate.” In libel law, truth is an absolute defense. If, for example, it is true that Kerry “lied before the Senate,” that Kerry “has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam” [Elliott], that Kerry “is lying about his record” [French], and that Kerry “lied to get his Bronze Star” [O’Dell], Kerry has no case for libel.
Third, even without the absolute defense of truth, Kerry, as a public official, has a constitutionally required burden of proof in a libel case to produce evidence showing that the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth witnesses either knew their statements were false, or recklessly disregarded knowledge of falsity. Kerry’s lawyers must realize their client can never satisfy this burden of proof.
For these reasons, and others, the democrat lawyers’ threatening letter to TV station managers was an unconscionable attempt to protect their candidate from the damning truths spoken by Vietnam veterans who have earned the right to exercise their First Amendment freedom of speech.
To their credit, TV stations in some marketplaces have refused to surrender to the bullying tactics of Kerry’s lawyers. This presents the democrat party and the Kerry campaign with two choices: put up or shut up.
They can slink off the field for having threatened TV stations with a baseless libel lawsuit, or, despite how they eventually hedge their threat, they can actually sue those TV stations that aren’t intimidated.
The latter course would be utter disaster—and Kerry’s lawyers have to know this. Kerry would no longer be able to hide behind spin masters. He would have to file a written complaint. Sworn depositions (including Kerry’s) would have to be taken. He would have to respond to requests for factual admissions. He would have to answer written interrogatories. He would have to produce documents.
There would have to be a trial. That means sworn testimony, cross examination, documentary evidence—all in front of a jury, reporters, perhaps even TV cameras.
Once all that happened, America would know who told the truth—and who lied.
This just buttresses my above post by Robert Novak. The more the Kerry camp attempts to squeeze out of the charge, AND the louder it shouts about the credibility of the accussors, the more negative attention it generates.
And any legal action only casts a more focused light upon the candidate.
Only one thing will be left to attempt, but it too will be counter productive. When the Kerry camp begins to produce the fruits of their "anal exam" of the accusors, they will not only be exposing the subject's potential "dirty laundry", but their own sleezy techniques as well. Had they done nothing initially, the hits would have been taken, and the incident would be on the way to being forgotten. Now, if will continue until after the November general election.
Good post(s) John L......and the liberal contigent is silenced once again....
QUOTE (Mr. McCain @ Aug 10 2004, 02:07 PM)
Good post(s) John L......and the liberal contigent is silenced once again....
Agree, good post from John.
A bit long as usual, but good.
I wonder what he will do when GWB will lose the elections.
Please, John, do not leave the forum after November.
We need you,...
QUOTE
Agree, good post from John.
A bit long as usual, but good.
I wonder what he will do when GWB will lose the elections.
Please, John, do not leave the forum after November.
We need you,.-BlueCat
A bit long as usual, but good.
I wonder what he will do when GWB will lose the elections.
Please, John, do not leave the forum after November.
We need you,.-BlueCat
BlueCat, actually I am almost completely burned out here. I am mentally exhausted, and for right now, I am simply losing interest quickly. I just cannot read all my news sites, give proper attention to this forum, and take care of my business. AND, if you add to the mix, the fact that this forum has not only attracted more than it's fair share of KOOKS, but allowed several other whackos back on parole, I just don't have the time or inclination to put up with all those nuts, much less read their posts OR respond.
Now, I am not including you, Le Tonk, C.Wow, Reggie and a few others. You all are worthy opponents who are more prone to think somewhat logically. But the absolute "bottom of the barrel" nuts that constantly spout the most intellectually lazy crap is simply too tiring for me to "keep up the fire". I need a vacation, AND I must catch up with my business. My clients are starting to clamour more loudly, and I must rely on myself in order to earn a descent living.
That being stated, even if GWB should lose, it will most certainly not cause me to go off and suck my thumb. And as I have stated more times than I can think, I am an independent politically. In general elections I usually vote for the Libertarians, but they have this terrible habit of being "pusseys" when it comes to national security. And "pussey", I am not! Therefore, I will support the President because only he is willing to go after the terrorists BEFORE they hit us first!
And BlueCat, nice try about the GWB lose in November. While I am willing to concede that there is a chance of his lose, the odds are almost all in his favour, especially as time draws closer to the election.
You "old European" folks not only have learned to live around all that Collectivist manure for all these years, but too many of you love it. The truth is that "over here", the overwhelming majority of US citizens are repelled by it. And as more voters become interested in the general election, and they are exposed to this poor racehorse that the Democrats have pushed forward, the less they will be inclined to vote Democratic. Mark my words here.
Kerry’s “Christmas in Cambodia”
A member of his crew says it didn’t happen.
A former member of John Kerry's swift-boat crew says the Democratic presidential candidate's account of spending Christmas 1968 in Cambodia is not true. Steve Gardner, who served on board PCF-44 under Kerry's command in December 1968, as well as part of January 1969, says that at the time, in the area in which Kerry and his crew were operating, it was not possible to take a swift boat to Cambodia.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200408101318.asp
If he lied about this, what else is he deceiving the country about?
A member of his crew says it didn’t happen.
A former member of John Kerry's swift-boat crew says the Democratic presidential candidate's account of spending Christmas 1968 in Cambodia is not true. Steve Gardner, who served on board PCF-44 under Kerry's command in December 1968, as well as part of January 1969, says that at the time, in the area in which Kerry and his crew were operating, it was not possible to take a swift boat to Cambodia.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200408101318.asp
If he lied about this, what else is he deceiving the country about?
Another logical editorial piece in the NY Daily News. Kerry's Cambodia Question, takes common sense even further.
It continues,
Anyway, more food for thought. Fanatics (those who are unable to change their minds, and unable to change the subject) would be best not read this article. It will only send you further into a reactionary funk.
QUOTE
John Edwards is supposed to be a great lawyer but at the recent Democratic convention he made a rookie mistake: He raised a question without knowing the answer. "If you have any questions about what John Kerry's made of, just spend three minutes with the men who served with him," he said.
Edwards meant Kerry's "band of brothers" - the small entourage of vets who served under him in Vietnam and now strongly support him for President.
Evidently, Edwards did not know at the time that almost every officer who commanded Kerry or served alongside him opposes his candidacy. Worse, they have formed a group, Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, that claims more than 250 members.
Edwards meant Kerry's "band of brothers" - the small entourage of vets who served under him in Vietnam and now strongly support him for President.
Evidently, Edwards did not know at the time that almost every officer who commanded Kerry or served alongside him opposes his candidacy. Worse, they have formed a group, Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, that claims more than 250 members.
It continues,
QUOTE
On March 27, 1986, Kerry told his fellow senators: "I remember Christmas of 1968, sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there, the troops were not in Cambodia.
"I have that memory, which is seared - seared - in me."
Here's the problem: Kerry's commanding officers and some of his crew members reportedly deny that he was in Cambodia on Christmas 1968. They say he was stationed near the town of Sa Dec, 55 miles from the Cambodian border.
Kerry's people are trying hard to discredit his discreditors. They call "Unfit for Command" co-author O'Neill a Republican hack with a decades-long grudge against Kerry. They say Texas moneymen close to Karl Rove are behind the TV spots and are warning TV stations, in writing, not to air them. They maintain that the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth are motivated by jealousy of Kerry or anger at his post-Vietnam anti-war activities. They want to dismiss all questions about Kerry's war record as sleazy slander.
Sorry, but that's not going to wash. The issue is not whether the charges against Kerry are politically motivated (they obviously are) or who is paying for them. There's just one relevant question: Are the allegations true? Specifically, is it true he lied about being in Cambodia.
"I have that memory, which is seared - seared - in me."
Here's the problem: Kerry's commanding officers and some of his crew members reportedly deny that he was in Cambodia on Christmas 1968. They say he was stationed near the town of Sa Dec, 55 miles from the Cambodian border.
Kerry's people are trying hard to discredit his discreditors. They call "Unfit for Command" co-author O'Neill a Republican hack with a decades-long grudge against Kerry. They say Texas moneymen close to Karl Rove are behind the TV spots and are warning TV stations, in writing, not to air them. They maintain that the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth are motivated by jealousy of Kerry or anger at his post-Vietnam anti-war activities. They want to dismiss all questions about Kerry's war record as sleazy slander.
Sorry, but that's not going to wash. The issue is not whether the charges against Kerry are politically motivated (they obviously are) or who is paying for them. There's just one relevant question: Are the allegations true? Specifically, is it true he lied about being in Cambodia.
Anyway, more food for thought. Fanatics (those who are unable to change their minds, and unable to change the subject) would be best not read this article. It will only send you further into a reactionary funk.
John Kerry's "Christmas In Cambodia" Story Was A Big Lie
For more than 30 years, it looks as if John Kerry has been doing this...[IMG]
Now, if John Kerry lied about going to Cambodia in Christmas of 1968, what else is he lying about?
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, men who are Vietnam Vets, men who fought beside of John Kerry, men who were in his chain of command, say Kerry was lying not only about Cambodia, but about his Bronze Star, and his 1st and 3rd Purple Hearts. They also say John Kerry is "Unfit for Command". Since the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were right about this, you have to wonder: are they right about everything else?
For more than 30 years, it looks as if John Kerry has been doing this...[IMG]
Now, if John Kerry lied about going to Cambodia in Christmas of 1968, what else is he lying about?
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, men who are Vietnam Vets, men who fought beside of John Kerry, men who were in his chain of command, say Kerry was lying not only about Cambodia, but about his Bronze Star, and his 1st and 3rd Purple Hearts. They also say John Kerry is "Unfit for Command". Since the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were right about this, you have to wonder: are they right about everything else?
Honestly Boon Mee, I'm starting to think this is not so sinister.
I just think Kerry suffers from Al Goria.
Maybe we should cut him some slack, and he can check in to some place for treatment.
I just think Kerry suffers from Al Goria.
Maybe we should cut him some slack, and he can check in to some place for treatment.
QUOTE (Kerry for Senator @ Aug 11 2004, 05:07 PM)
Honestly Boon Mee, I'm starting to think this is not so sinister.
I just think Kerry suffers from Al Goria.
Maybe we should cut him some slack, and he can check in to some place for treatment.
I just think Kerry suffers from Al Goria.
Maybe we should cut him some slack, and he can check in to some place for treatment.
Think about it...if the guy lied about this, what else has/is he fabricating? It shows a certain weakness of character and demonstrates he's not fit to be Commander-in-Chief of a river barge!
QUOTE
Maybe we should cut him some slack, and he can check in to some place for treatment.KFS
Well, he can still do that anyway, don't you think.
Piling on can be so much fun, especially when it is you who is doing the piling on. Poor Huey, must be feeling the weight of all the bodies on top.
We need Thiaquila to add some sanity to this brawl.
I don't like the slippery slope philosophy, but this guy defintely likes self agrandisement (?)
I think I hit the nail on the head with the Al Gore comparison.
These guys love the gray.
No matter who wins, the next four years of the bear pit should definitely be interesting.
I think I hit the nail on the head with the Al Gore comparison.
These guys love the gray.
No matter who wins, the next four years of the bear pit should definitely be interesting.
QUOTE (John L @ Aug 11 2004, 05:19 PM)
QUOTE
Maybe we should cut him some slack, and he can check in to some place for treatment.KFS
Well, he can still do that anyway, don't you think.
Piling on can be so much fun, especially when it is you who is doing the piling on. Poor Huey, must be feeling the weight of all the bodies on top.
We need Thiaquila to add some sanity to this brawl.
Beg to differ John, we don't really need TQ back w/all his crap. This place is a lot nicer w/out his rants.
BTW, Expect the spin on Kerry’s Cambodia Holiday to change to the "so what if he lied?" line shortly. And the answer is:WHAT IF... Porter Goss had lied about going into Cambodia during the Vietnam War repeatedly, over a few decades, in different media, and on the floor of the House)?
Would we want him as DCI? Would he get confirmed? NO WAY!
We should not hold Kerry - who is running for CIC - to a lower standard!
QUOTE
Beg to differ John, we don't really need TQ back w/all his crap. This place is a lot nicer w/out his rants.-Boon Me
Just where in the devil is your sense of humour, anyway?
QUOTE (John L @ Aug 11 2004, 05:29 PM)
QUOTE
Beg to differ John, we don't really need TQ back w/all his crap. This place is a lot nicer w/out his rants.-Boon Me
Just where in the devil is your sense of humour, anyway?
You're right, I've been "obsessing" on this Cambodia Holiday story and suppose it would be kinda cool to have TQ around to throw it in his face!
Boon me, I missed the point about Kerry and his "magic hat" on the Hugh Hewitt show. Could you fill me in please?
QUOTE (John L @ Aug 11 2004, 06:00 PM)
Boon me, I missed the point about Kerry and his "magic hat" on the Hugh Hewitt show. Could you fill me in please?
John,
It's about 3/4 of the way down in this article:http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59559-2003May30?language=printer
And who is he, really?
A close associate hints: There's a secret compartment in Kerry's briefcase. He carries the black attaché everywhere. Asked about it on several occasions, Kerry brushed it aside. Finally, trapped in an interview, he exhaled and clicked open his case.
"Who told you?" he demanded as he reached inside. "My friends don't know about this."
The hat was a little mildewy. The green camouflage was fading, the seams fraying.
"My good luck hat," Kerry said, happy to see it. "Given to me by a CIA guy as we went in for a special mission in Cambodia."
Kerry put on the hat, pulling the brim over his forehead. His blue button-down shirt and tie clashed with the camouflage. He pointed his finger and raised his thumb, creating an imaginary gun. He looked silly, yet suddenly his campaign message was clear: Citizen-soldier. Linking patriotism to public service. It wasn't complex after all; it was Kerry.
He smiled and aimed his finger: "Pow."
p.s. sorry the dynamic link didn't 'xfer...
John L and Boon,
If what you say is true and Kerry does not deserve the medals he has recieved, do you mean to say that we cannot trust the US Armed Forces to even award the right people the right honours?
Are they so stupid that they give medals to cowards?
AL147
If what you say is true and Kerry does not deserve the medals he has recieved, do you mean to say that we cannot trust the US Armed Forces to even award the right people the right honours?
Are they so stupid that they give medals to cowards?
AL147
QUOTE (AL147 @ Aug 11 2004, 08:44 PM)
John L and Boon,
If what you say is true and Kerry does not deserve the medals he has recieved, do you mean to say that we cannot trust the US Armed Forces to even award the right people the right honours?
Are they so stupid that they give medals to cowards?
AL147
If what you say is true and Kerry does not deserve the medals he has recieved, do you mean to say that we cannot trust the US Armed Forces to even award the right people the right honours?
Are they so stupid that they give medals to cowards?
AL147
Yep. Especialy if they lie and disseminate as Lurch did to get his medals.
At this writing, the Kerry campaign has not yet responded to the
media meltdown that is occurring around John Kerry's four
decades of stories built on his secret, illegal missions into
Cambodia during the four months he skippered a SWIFT boat.
It is impossible to stonewall a story that broke out of the
blogosphere and into the major media on Monday night and
Tuesday morning, so eventually John Kerry is going to have to
stand by his wildly implausible tales of cross-border excellent
adventures, or he's going to have to apologize for inventing
personal history.
Here are the facts. Not long after returning from Vietnam, John
Kerry began telling people he had been sent into Cambodia on
an illegal patrol on Christmas Eve 1968. He repeated that story
on the floor of the Senate in 1986, to an AP reporter in 1992, and
as recently as June 2003 was regaling a Washington Post
reporter with a story of how he had ferried a CIA man secretly
into Cambodia, and how he'd kept the man's hat as a reminder of
that journey.
For the rest of this true and accurate account of the man who would be President, go here...
http://www.kerrywaffles.net/xmas.html
It seems that Kerry's remarks just won't leave him be here. And finally, the mainstream press is beginning to pick up on the charges and lack of coherent responses out of the Kerry campaign. Michael Kranish of the Boston Globe, in Kerry Disputes Alligations in Cambodia, is finally starting to ask the questions that the mainstream press should have been asking BEFORE he became the winner in he Democratic sweepstakes.
The real question is just how much longer the press can allow this to simmer without following up on it. And note: reporters will eventually pursue a story even though it does not support their political agenda. The question here is just how hard, and how much.
QUOTE
James Wasser, who accompanied Kerry on that mission aboard patrol boat No. 44 and who supports Kerry's candidacy, said that while he believes they were "very, very close" to Cambodia, he did not think they entered Cambodia on that mission. Yet he added: "It is very hard to tell. There are no signs."
Another crewmate who said he was with Kerry on Christmas Eve, Steven Gardner -- who is a member of the veterans group opposing Kerry's candidacy -- said Kerry was 50 miles from Cambodia at the time. He accused Kerry of lying about being in Cambodia or by the border. "Never happened," Gardner said.
Separately, according to Meehan's statement, Kerry crossed into Cambodia on a covert mission to drop off special operations forces. In an interview, Meehan said there was no paperwork for such missions and he could not supply a date. That makes it hard to ascertain or confirm what happened. Kerry served on two swift boats, the No. 44 in December 1968 and January 1969, and the No. 94, from February to March 1969.
Michael Medeiros, who served aboard the No. 94 with Kerry and appeared with him at the Democratic National Convention, vividly recalled an occasion on which Kerry and the crew chased an enemy to the Cambodian border but did not go beyond the border. Yet Medeiros said he could not recall dropping off special forces in Cambodia or going inside Cambodia with Kerry.
Another crewmate who said he was with Kerry on Christmas Eve, Steven Gardner -- who is a member of the veterans group opposing Kerry's candidacy -- said Kerry was 50 miles from Cambodia at the time. He accused Kerry of lying about being in Cambodia or by the border. "Never happened," Gardner said.
Separately, according to Meehan's statement, Kerry crossed into Cambodia on a covert mission to drop off special operations forces. In an interview, Meehan said there was no paperwork for such missions and he could not supply a date. That makes it hard to ascertain or confirm what happened. Kerry served on two swift boats, the No. 44 in December 1968 and January 1969, and the No. 94, from February to March 1969.
Michael Medeiros, who served aboard the No. 94 with Kerry and appeared with him at the Democratic National Convention, vividly recalled an occasion on which Kerry and the crew chased an enemy to the Cambodian border but did not go beyond the border. Yet Medeiros said he could not recall dropping off special forces in Cambodia or going inside Cambodia with Kerry.
The real question is just how much longer the press can allow this to simmer without following up on it. And note: reporters will eventually pursue a story even though it does not support their political agenda. The question here is just how hard, and how much.
As a further continuance on this subject, allow me to present Joan Vennochi, also of the Boston Globe. In Speak For Yourself John Kerry, she does not mince words.
And note here, that she is certainly not a Bush supporter. However, the lack of credible response among the Kerry camp, AND it's blatent mismanagement have her in deep doldrums. She finishes;
And she is certainly now not alone. Lee Cearnal, in the Houston Chonicle, Where's My Colleague's Interest In Kerry's War Record?, also takes the press to task.
He goes on and on with the already mentioned herein stories. I suggest that you read the article. But he concludes;
It seems to me that the Kerry camp is in the process of having the wheels come loose on the Kerry bandwagon. How do they respond to all these charges? Why, with more inaccuracies, of course.
In the latest snafu, the Kerry camp wishing to quiet rumours of his seriel absenses from the Senate Intelligence Committee, and his lack of interest therein, announced that the charges were baseless. and Further, to malign a former Vice-Chairman of the Senate Intelligence committee, was unthinkable. Only one problem here. JFK, the lesser, was not Vice-Chairman of any Senate Committee. It was Bob Kerrey. Notice the spelling difference. Even the shape of the head and height are different.
In truth, what we have here is a campaign being run by a bunch of incompetent "tail draggers". And there are in fact two things that can cause a candidate to lose an election: a bad candidate; and an incompetent staff.
So the question here is this: which one or combination thereof are you willing to admit? Methinks that it is all of the above. 
EDIT NOTE: It just keeps coming! Unraping Kerry's Cambodia Story Of Christmas In Cambodia, is yet another one. Things appear to be gaining steam.
So, how far will it go? How long will the Thaiquilas and Lamphuns(Scotty) continue to take the punches? Huey, when he returns, will most assuridly refuse to stop beating his head against the stone wall.
So "Wassup" homeys?
QUOTE
Regular readers know I do not appreciate Kerry's nuance regarding Iraq, his fence-straddling on issues like gay marriage and his recent effort to finesse a career of pro-choice votes by now stressing a belief that life begins at conception. It adds up to an unseemly effort to side-step the label that best describes his voting record: liberal. Kerry should focus more on the lessons of Vietnam, and less on his heroics in Vietnam. If he were true to those lessons, he would not be telling voters he would have voted to authorize war with Iraq knowing all that we now know.
But criticizing him for political expedience is different from calling him a liar. That's what the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are doing. By questioning Kerry's version of events during his tour of duty, these veterans are helping Bush plant seeds of doubt about Kerry's truthfulness.
But criticizing him for political expedience is different from calling him a liar. That's what the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are doing. By questioning Kerry's version of events during his tour of duty, these veterans are helping Bush plant seeds of doubt about Kerry's truthfulness.
And note here, that she is certainly not a Bush supporter. However, the lack of credible response among the Kerry camp, AND it's blatent mismanagement have her in deep doldrums. She finishes;
QUOTE
The Kerry campaign now says Kerry's runs into Cambodia came in early 1969. "Swift boat crews regularly operated along the Cambodian border from Ha Tien on the Gulf of Thailand to the rivers of the Mekong south and west of Saigon," Michael Meehan, a Kerry adviser, said in a statement last week. "Many times he was on or near the Cambodian border and on one occasion crossed into Cambodia at the request of members of a special operations group."
Answers like that aren't good enough. Kerry put his Vietnam service before voters as the seminal character issue of his presidential campaign. He should answer every question voters have about it -- and he should answer them himself.
Answers like that aren't good enough. Kerry put his Vietnam service before voters as the seminal character issue of his presidential campaign. He should answer every question voters have about it -- and he should answer them himself.
And she is certainly now not alone. Lee Cearnal, in the Houston Chonicle, Where's My Colleague's Interest In Kerry's War Record?, also takes the press to task.
QUOTE
The same news media that demanded George W. Bush release his National Guard records — and went over them with a microscope — have shown an appalling lack of interest in John Kerry's military service. And as it turns out, there are far more legitimate questions about the latter than the former.
Just last week, one of his more fatuous claims came a cropper. Beginning in 1979, with an op-ed for the Boston Herald, Kerry has claimed repeatedly that he spent Christmas Eve of 1968 on a secret — and illegal — mission in Cambodia aboard his swift boat.
"On more than one occasion, I, like Martin Sheen in Apocalypse Now, took my patrol boat into Cambodia. In fact, I remember spending Christmas Day of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real. But nowhere in Apocalypse Now did I sense that kind of absurdity."
Just last week, one of his more fatuous claims came a cropper. Beginning in 1979, with an op-ed for the Boston Herald, Kerry has claimed repeatedly that he spent Christmas Eve of 1968 on a secret — and illegal — mission in Cambodia aboard his swift boat.
"On more than one occasion, I, like Martin Sheen in Apocalypse Now, took my patrol boat into Cambodia. In fact, I remember spending Christmas Day of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real. But nowhere in Apocalypse Now did I sense that kind of absurdity."
He goes on and on with the already mentioned herein stories. I suggest that you read the article. But he concludes;
QUOTE
To those of you who say such questions are unseemly, consider that John Kerry's principal claim on the presidency is that he served four months and 11 days in Vietnam. OK, fine. Let's examine the records — all the records, which, unlike Bush and contrary to popular perception, Kerry has not released — and have a debate. We would be if it were George W. Bush. The media would see to it.
It seems to me that the Kerry camp is in the process of having the wheels come loose on the Kerry bandwagon. How do they respond to all these charges? Why, with more inaccuracies, of course.
In the latest snafu, the Kerry camp wishing to quiet rumours of his seriel absenses from the Senate Intelligence Committee, and his lack of interest therein, announced that the charges were baseless. and Further, to malign a former Vice-Chairman of the Senate Intelligence committee, was unthinkable. Only one problem here. JFK, the lesser, was not Vice-Chairman of any Senate Committee. It was Bob Kerrey. Notice the spelling difference. Even the shape of the head and height are different.
In truth, what we have here is a campaign being run by a bunch of incompetent "tail draggers". And there are in fact two things that can cause a candidate to lose an election: a bad candidate; and an incompetent staff.
So the question here is this: which one or combination thereof are you willing to admit? Methinks that it is all of the above.
EDIT NOTE: It just keeps coming! Unraping Kerry's Cambodia Story Of Christmas In Cambodia, is yet another one. Things appear to be gaining steam.
QUOTE
Given the attention lavished on President Bush's service in the Air National Guard earlier this year, we thought that newspapers such as the Washington Post and the New York Times would want to devote comparable attention to John Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia story. We also thought they would want to consider what the falsity of Kerry's story might have to tell us about the uses to which Kerry is putting his Vietnam service in the current presidential campaign.
To date, however, we have been wrong. Neither the influential mainstream newspapers nor the broadcast television networks have reported the meltdown of Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia story. Only readers of Internet blogs such as ours have kept current on the exposure of Kerry's tall tale. Or on the Kerry campaign's lame efforts to resurrect a version of the story that contradicts what Kerry has said for the past 25 years, but allows Kerry to continue using his Vietnam experiences, real and imagined, for his own political purposes.
Whatever the reason -- and we have our suspicions -- when it comes to scrutiny of Sen. Kerry's veracity, the mainstream media are saluting, but they are decidedly not reporting for duty.
To date, however, we have been wrong. Neither the influential mainstream newspapers nor the broadcast television networks have reported the meltdown of Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia story. Only readers of Internet blogs such as ours have kept current on the exposure of Kerry's tall tale. Or on the Kerry campaign's lame efforts to resurrect a version of the story that contradicts what Kerry has said for the past 25 years, but allows Kerry to continue using his Vietnam experiences, real and imagined, for his own political purposes.
Whatever the reason -- and we have our suspicions -- when it comes to scrutiny of Sen. Kerry's veracity, the mainstream media are saluting, but they are decidedly not reporting for duty.
So, how far will it go? How long will the Thaiquilas and Lamphuns(Scotty) continue to take the punches? Huey, when he returns, will most assuridly refuse to stop beating his head against the stone wall.
So "Wassup" homeys?
At least we can be certain of one thing,
GW wasnt anywhere near Cambodia or Vietnam.
AL147
GW wasnt anywhere near Cambodia or Vietnam.
AL147
QUOTE
At least we can be certain of one thing,-147
At least we can be certain of one other thing. You agree with my assessment, and have nothing else to add except "ad hominem" attacks on the opponent. An opponent, I might add, who NEVER LIED about his past military service.
Well, so much for the "Bush Lied" thing.
Kerry Woes Just Got Worse on Cambodia
Michael Kranish of the Boston Globe gives a fairly straightforward account of the Christmas in Cambodia story, but adds one crucial detail to what we already knew:
Michael Medeiros, who served aboard the No. 94 with Kerry and appeared with him at the Democratic National Convention, vividly recalled an occasion on which Kerry and the crew chased an enemy to the Cambodian border but did not go beyond the border. Yet Medeiros said he could not recall dropping off special forces in Cambodia or going inside Cambodia with Kerry.
That is, in a word, devastating. Medeiros appears to have served with Kerry on PCF-94 the entire time Kerry was on the boat. So PCF-94 never went into Cambodia, and we know that PCF-44 never went into Cambodia, because three of Kerry's boatmates there deny it. It was Medeiros who snapped the photos on pages 7 and 8 of the photo section that show SEALs and/or other special forces types on Kerry's boat. This certainly seems to close off any possibility that Kerry made his trip to Cambodia in January (which we already proved was doubtful) or February or March.
You know what we're struck with here? How many people, despite supporting John Kerry's presidential bid, wouldn't lie for him. Douglas Brinkley wouldn't lie for Kerry (although he sure tried to blur lines). Bill Zaladonis wouldn't lie for Kerry. Stephen Hatch wouldn't lie for Kerry. Now we learn that Mike Medeiros wouldn't lie for Kerry.
Gerald Nicosia wouldn't lie for Kerry on the VVAW assassination plot; neither would Randy Barnes. All of these people support Kerry; these are not members of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
He's in deep trouble on this now. Don't see any way out of it. The press could continue to tank for him, but you sense they're like little boys doing the pee-pee dance; they won't be able to hold it in much longer.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/presid...ambodia?mode=PF
Michael Kranish of the Boston Globe gives a fairly straightforward account of the Christmas in Cambodia story, but adds one crucial detail to what we already knew:
Michael Medeiros, who served aboard the No. 94 with Kerry and appeared with him at the Democratic National Convention, vividly recalled an occasion on which Kerry and the crew chased an enemy to the Cambodian border but did not go beyond the border. Yet Medeiros said he could not recall dropping off special forces in Cambodia or going inside Cambodia with Kerry.
That is, in a word, devastating. Medeiros appears to have served with Kerry on PCF-94 the entire time Kerry was on the boat. So PCF-94 never went into Cambodia, and we know that PCF-44 never went into Cambodia, because three of Kerry's boatmates there deny it. It was Medeiros who snapped the photos on pages 7 and 8 of the photo section that show SEALs and/or other special forces types on Kerry's boat. This certainly seems to close off any possibility that Kerry made his trip to Cambodia in January (which we already proved was doubtful) or February or March.
You know what we're struck with here? How many people, despite supporting John Kerry's presidential bid, wouldn't lie for him. Douglas Brinkley wouldn't lie for Kerry (although he sure tried to blur lines). Bill Zaladonis wouldn't lie for Kerry. Stephen Hatch wouldn't lie for Kerry. Now we learn that Mike Medeiros wouldn't lie for Kerry.
Gerald Nicosia wouldn't lie for Kerry on the VVAW assassination plot; neither would Randy Barnes. All of these people support Kerry; these are not members of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
He's in deep trouble on this now. Don't see any way out of it. The press could continue to tank for him, but you sense they're like little boys doing the pee-pee dance; they won't be able to hold it in much longer.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/presid...ambodia?mode=PF
QUOTE (John L @ Aug 18 2004, 04:57 PM)
QUOTE
At least we can be certain of one thing,-147
At least we can be certain of one other thing. You agree with my assessment, and have nothing else to add except "ad hominem" attacks on the opponent. An opponent, I might add, who NEVER LIED about his past military service.
Well, so much for the "Bush Lied" thing.
Maybe the socialists will finally abandon that joke of an assertion now.
QUOTE (John L @ Aug 18 2004, 04:57 PM)
QUOTE
At least we can be certain of one thing,-147
At least we can be certain of one other thing. You agree with my assessment, and have nothing else to add except "ad hominem" attacks on the opponent. An opponent, I might add, who NEVER LIED about his past military service.
Well, so much for the "Bush Lied" thing.
Records Counter A Critic Of Kerry
Fellow Skipper's Citation Refers To Enemy Fire
By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 19, 2004; Page A01
Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events.
In newspaper interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry's claim that the Massachusetts Democrat's boat came under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star for his actions that day.
But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."
As one of five Swift boat skippers who led the raid up the Bay Hap River, Thurlow was a direct participant in the disputed events. He is also a leading member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a public advocacy group of Vietnam veterans dismayed by Kerry's subsequent antiwar activities, which has aired a controversial television advertisement attacking his war record.
In interviews and written reminiscences, Kerry has described how his 50-foot patrol boat came under fire from the banks of the Bay Hap after a mine explosion disabled another U.S. patrol boat. According to Kerry and members of his crew, the firing continued as an injured Kerry leaned over the bow of his ship to rescue a Special Forces officer who was blown overboard in a second explosion.
Last month, Thurlow swore in an affidavit that Kerry was "not under fire" when he fished Lt. James Rassmann out of the water. He described Kerry's Bronze Star citation, which says that all units involved came under "small arms and automatic weapons fire," as "totally fabricated."
"I never heard a shot," Thurlow said in his affidavit, which was released by Swift Boats Veterans for Truth. The group claims the backing of more than 250 Vietnam veterans, including a majority of Kerry's fellow boat commanders.
A document recommending Thurlow for the Bronze Star noted that all his actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire which LTJG THURLOW completely ignored in providing immediate assistance" to the disabled boat and its crew. The citation states that all other units in the flotilla also came under fire.
In a telephone interview Tuesday evening after he attended a Swift Boat Veterans strategy session in an Arlington hotel, Thurlow said he lost his Bronze Star citation more than 20 years ago. He said he was unwilling to authorize release of his military records because he feared attempts by the Kerry campaign to discredit him and other anti-Kerry veterans.
Thurlow, an oil industry worker and former teacher in Kansas, said he was angry with Kerry for his antiwar activities on his return to the United States and particularly Kerry's claim before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that U.S. troops in Vietnam had committed war crimes "with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."
Money has poured into Swift Boat Veterans for Truth since the group launched its television advertisement attacking Kerry earlier this month. According to O'Neill, the group has received more than $450,000 over the past two weeks, mainly in small contributions. The Dallas Morning News reported yesterday that the organization has also received two $100,000 checks from Houston home builder Bob Perry, who backed George W. Bush's campaigns for Texas governor and for president.
Bush campaign officials have said they have no connection to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which is not permitted to coordinate its activities with a presidential campaign under federal election law.
What are they called again? SBVs for truth?????????
Just shows you how low some people will go to win an election.
AL147
The NY Times has finally come down from up high and actually acknowledged that the Swift Boat Veterans actually exist. InPolitics As Usual , they do the usual NY Times thing, but the importance of it all is that they are even mentioning it. WOW!
The next thing you may read is that there is actually a difference between boys and girls. Now, that would be important too!
I imagine that if the book is about to debute at number three on your own book list, you have to at least acknowledge something about them, right?
The next thing you may read is that there is actually a difference between boys and girls. Now, that would be important too!
I imagine that if the book is about to debute at number three on your own book list, you have to at least acknowledge something about them, right?
SwiftVets for Fantasy
The negative phase of the general election started early this year, so the traditional late-summer moral descent is taking us one step deeper, to the personally nasty. "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth"—their Web site calls them Swiftvets—say Kerry lied about Vietnam. MoveOn PAC says the Swiftvets, with Bush's complicity, lied about Kerry lying.
The Swiftvets' allegations are deliberately blurred. Their ad starts with John Edwards urging people to talk to "the men who served with" Kerry. Several Swiftvets then appear on the screen, saying they "served with" Kerry. This is a semantic trick. Edwards is talking about crewmates who, at one time or another, accompanied Kerry on his six-man boat. The Swiftvets served with Kerry only in the sense that they manned other boats in Vietnam. It's a bit like saying you spent the night with Bill Clinton because you were on Martha's Vineyard, too.
Thirteen vets make 15 statements in the ad. Let's discard the unfalsifiable ones: "You could not count on John Kerry," "John Kerry is no war hero," "John Kerry has not been honest," "John Kerry cannot be trusted," "He is lying about his record," and "He lacks the capacity to lead." There's no way to fact-check these because they cite no facts.
Next, let's distinguish Kerry's statements about what he did from his statements about what others did. Most of the Swiftvets' material complaints address the latter: "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam," "John Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam," "He dishonored his country ... he most certainly did," "He betrayed all his shipmates ... he lied before the Senate." Phrases such as "what happened in Vietnam," "dishonored his country," "lied before the Senate," and "the men and women he served with" (there were no women on Kerry's boat) give away that these claims have nothing to do with Kerry's service. They're about his allegations afterward that American forces participated in war crimes.
The war crimes debate is murky. Kerry testified not about what he had seen but about what other servicemen had told him. And some war crimes clearly occurred. So at a minimum, in both spirit and substance, he didn't lie.
That brings us to the allegations that he misrepresented his own experiences. Here, Kerry's testimony was firsthand, so his veracity is on the line. Only two statements in the ad fall into this category. One comes from Louis Letson: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury." The other comes from Van O'Dell: "John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star. ... I know, I was there, I saw what happened."
Letson loses credibility right away for implying that he has firsthand knowledge about his allegation. He doesn't. The allegation has to do with the source of Kerry's injury, not its severity. According to Tuesday's Los Angeles Times, Letson told the paper that after treating Kerry, "[Letson] learned from some medical corpsmen that other crewmen had confided that there was no exchange of fire and that Kerry had accidentally wounded himself as he fired at the guerrillas. Letson said he didn't know if the crewmen giving this account were in the boat with Kerry or on other boats."
That's third-hand testimony from somebody who doesn't even know the identity or location of the firsthand source. Pretty lousy stuff. Furthermore, the Times notes, "Navy rules during the Vietnam War governing Purple Hearts did not take into account a wound's severity—and specified only that injuries had to be suffered 'in action against an enemy.' … A Times review of Navy injury reports and awards from that period in Kerry's Swift boat unit shows that many other Swift boat personnel won Purple Hearts for slight wounds of uncertain origin." Case closed.
O'Dell, on the other hand, really "was there" when Kerry earned his Bronze Star. This was the incident in which Kerry pulled Jim Rassman, a green beret, from a river. Nobody disputes that it happened or that mines had gone off. Kerry says the rescue happened under fire. O'Dell and some others who were in boats nearby say it didn't. Rassman backs up Kerry's version. So does Del Sandusky, a crewman on Kerry's boat, who told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch last week, "I saw the gunflashes shooting at us from the shore. I saw the rounds hitting the water." So does the Navy's official after-action report. Such reports normally included input from all Swift boat officers involved in a battle. Bottom line: Everyone agrees that there were explosions, and among the men who were on Kerry's boat or in the water next to it, the record of testimony on Kerry's account that shots were fired is 2-0 for Kerry. So much for the Swiftvets ad.
The negative phase of the general election started early this year, so the traditional late-summer moral descent is taking us one step deeper, to the personally nasty. "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth"—their Web site calls them Swiftvets—say Kerry lied about Vietnam. MoveOn PAC says the Swiftvets, with Bush's complicity, lied about Kerry lying.
The Swiftvets' allegations are deliberately blurred. Their ad starts with John Edwards urging people to talk to "the men who served with" Kerry. Several Swiftvets then appear on the screen, saying they "served with" Kerry. This is a semantic trick. Edwards is talking about crewmates who, at one time or another, accompanied Kerry on his six-man boat. The Swiftvets served with Kerry only in the sense that they manned other boats in Vietnam. It's a bit like saying you spent the night with Bill Clinton because you were on Martha's Vineyard, too.
Thirteen vets make 15 statements in the ad. Let's discard the unfalsifiable ones: "You could not count on John Kerry," "John Kerry is no war hero," "John Kerry has not been honest," "John Kerry cannot be trusted," "He is lying about his record," and "He lacks the capacity to lead." There's no way to fact-check these because they cite no facts.
Next, let's distinguish Kerry's statements about what he did from his statements about what others did. Most of the Swiftvets' material complaints address the latter: "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam," "John Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam," "He dishonored his country ... he most certainly did," "He betrayed all his shipmates ... he lied before the Senate." Phrases such as "what happened in Vietnam," "dishonored his country," "lied before the Senate," and "the men and women he served with" (there were no women on Kerry's boat) give away that these claims have nothing to do with Kerry's service. They're about his allegations afterward that American forces participated in war crimes.
The war crimes debate is murky. Kerry testified not about what he had seen but about what other servicemen had told him. And some war crimes clearly occurred. So at a minimum, in both spirit and substance, he didn't lie.
That brings us to the allegations that he misrepresented his own experiences. Here, Kerry's testimony was firsthand, so his veracity is on the line. Only two statements in the ad fall into this category. One comes from Louis Letson: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury." The other comes from Van O'Dell: "John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star. ... I know, I was there, I saw what happened."
Letson loses credibility right away for implying that he has firsthand knowledge about his allegation. He doesn't. The allegation has to do with the source of Kerry's injury, not its severity. According to Tuesday's Los Angeles Times, Letson told the paper that after treating Kerry, "[Letson] learned from some medical corpsmen that other crewmen had confided that there was no exchange of fire and that Kerry had accidentally wounded himself as he fired at the guerrillas. Letson said he didn't know if the crewmen giving this account were in the boat with Kerry or on other boats."
That's third-hand testimony from somebody who doesn't even know the identity or location of the firsthand source. Pretty lousy stuff. Furthermore, the Times notes, "Navy rules during the Vietnam War governing Purple Hearts did not take into account a wound's severity—and specified only that injuries had to be suffered 'in action against an enemy.' … A Times review of Navy injury reports and awards from that period in Kerry's Swift boat unit shows that many other Swift boat personnel won Purple Hearts for slight wounds of uncertain origin." Case closed.
O'Dell, on the other hand, really "was there" when Kerry earned his Bronze Star. This was the incident in which Kerry pulled Jim Rassman, a green beret, from a river. Nobody disputes that it happened or that mines had gone off. Kerry says the rescue happened under fire. O'Dell and some others who were in boats nearby say it didn't. Rassman backs up Kerry's version. So does Del Sandusky, a crewman on Kerry's boat, who told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch last week, "I saw the gunflashes shooting at us from the shore. I saw the rounds hitting the water." So does the Navy's official after-action report. Such reports normally included input from all Swift boat officers involved in a battle. Bottom line: Everyone agrees that there were explosions, and among the men who were on Kerry's boat or in the water next to it, the record of testimony on Kerry's account that shots were fired is 2-0 for Kerry. So much for the Swiftvets ad.
For me the focus should be on Kerry's anti-war protests after the got back from Nam. He spent more time at that than he did serving...and on his voting record as a Senator. Reason being he obviously considers his Military time a mistake! So why focus on his mistake as a positive thing now just because it looks better?
QUOTE (jaybee @ Aug 19 2004, 03:49 PM)
So why focus on his mistake as a positive thing now just because it looks better?
Because that is what politicians do best.
BTY Roadster, if you have the courage, you might wish to tune into Rush Limbaugh RIGHT NOW, because he is on a roll and laying out the truth on JFK the lesser. Check it out: If you have the GUTS!
More Morons on Troop Withdrawals
This is the funniest piece of bilge that’s out there today, at least ignoring the constant stream of effluent flowing out of the Kerry camp.
Don't know if this one beats their transparent attempt to redraw the maps of the border between Cambodian and Viet Nam by shifting the delta ninety degrees, but it's bound to be close. Just finished reading about one Clinton retread bashing Bush's troop redeployment and up pops another.
I swear it's like a game of wack-a-mole, though at least the moles put more thought into their strategy. I'm guessing that every Kerry supporter remotely connected to foreign policy got a fax saying "Bash Bush's redeployment plant". If you want to have a look at the logic Kerry stupidly decided to run against, go check out this short Globe And Mail story,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Art...ment/TopStories
Bush's Withdrawal From the World
It’s hilarious how Bush bashers have no shame in bashing him for completely opposite reasons, just like a cheap stuffed toy that says the same thing over and over, no matter how many times you pull the little string. Prior to 9/11 the European sophisticates were claiming Bush was the most inept leader ever, for disengaging from the world back when we decided we should slow the pace of our deployments to crisis zones. Then along came 9/11 and they screamed that he was inept because he was far too engaged and meddling, interfering in affairs that were none of his business (such as Saddam's illegal kickbacks to Chirac's team). Now Bush follows up on an idea as old as the fall of the Berlin wall, reducing our heavy armor in Germany, and the riders of life's 'tard cart are again screaming at him for "withdrawing from the world".
These Euroweenies don’t have a clue. Just wait until they get their a** in a crack and ask us to bail ‘em out again.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Aug17.html
This is the funniest piece of bilge that’s out there today, at least ignoring the constant stream of effluent flowing out of the Kerry camp.
Don't know if this one beats their transparent attempt to redraw the maps of the border between Cambodian and Viet Nam by shifting the delta ninety degrees, but it's bound to be close. Just finished reading about one Clinton retread bashing Bush's troop redeployment and up pops another.
I swear it's like a game of wack-a-mole, though at least the moles put more thought into their strategy. I'm guessing that every Kerry supporter remotely connected to foreign policy got a fax saying "Bash Bush's redeployment plant". If you want to have a look at the logic Kerry stupidly decided to run against, go check out this short Globe And Mail story,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Art...ment/TopStories
Bush's Withdrawal From the World
It’s hilarious how Bush bashers have no shame in bashing him for completely opposite reasons, just like a cheap stuffed toy that says the same thing over and over, no matter how many times you pull the little string. Prior to 9/11 the European sophisticates were claiming Bush was the most inept leader ever, for disengaging from the world back when we decided we should slow the pace of our deployments to crisis zones. Then along came 9/11 and they screamed that he was inept because he was far too engaged and meddling, interfering in affairs that were none of his business (such as Saddam's illegal kickbacks to Chirac's team). Now Bush follows up on an idea as old as the fall of the Berlin wall, reducing our heavy armor in Germany, and the riders of life's 'tard cart are again screaming at him for "withdrawing from the world".
These Euroweenies don’t have a clue. Just wait until they get their a** in a crack and ask us to bail ‘em out again.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Aug17.html
QUOTE (jaybee @ Aug 19 2004, 03:49 PM)
For me the focus should be on Kerry's anti-war protests after the got back from Nam. He spent more time at that than he did serving...and on his voting record as a Senator. Reason being he obviously considers his Military time a mistake! So why focus on his mistake as a positive thing now just because it looks better?
What was Kerry thinking when he made his "service" a campaign issue, I swear he's trying to loose now.
Yes, you're right though, his aiding communists when he returned, and countless years of voting to destroy our military, that's what we should focus on.
Do you know who is paying the bills for Swiftboat Veterans for Lies? It's Texas "under the table" money.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2004_0819.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2004_0819.html
Let's see, I think that it was, what, $150,000. Oh, and how much has George Soros given to MoveOn? Is if $5,000,000, or is it $10,000,000, I can't remember.
So Roadster, that's like the peanut calling the watermellon an equal opportunity patron. Nice try, but no kudos.
So Roadster, that's like the peanut calling the watermellon an equal opportunity patron. Nice try, but no kudos.
QUOTE (Gop 4 life! @ Aug 19 2004, 07:12 PM)
What was Kerry thinking when he made his "service" a campaign issue, I swear he's trying to loose now.
Yes, you're right though, his aiding communists when he returned, and countless years of voting to destroy our military, that's what we should focus on.
Yes, you're right though, his aiding communists when he returned, and countless years of voting to destroy our military, that's what we should focus on.
The word is "lose" get it !!!
Also while we're at it it's Signed not "Singed"
GOP, your rhetoric is so awesome that the so-called "liberals" have nothing to criticize, other than to nit-pick about small spelling mistakes. 
How lame.
Keep up the good work; You da man!!
How lame.
Keep up the good work; You da man!!
Here is a further example of how the Democratic Left is coming unhinged.
Last night, whilst working on the computer, I got up and turned off Fox News, as I do not listen to Greta, Hilda, or whomever. I hate lawyers. So I tuned in to Scarborough Country on MSNBC. He is better than Greta by a long shot.
Well, after the show, HardBall came on and I forgot to get up and turn it off. Next thing I know, he is absolutely foaming at the mouth at one of the Swift Boat Vets. I'm ready to get up and turn this Jerk-off off. But I am lazy so I postpone it.
And next, up comes the mild mannered and absolutely cute little sweetie Michelle Malkin. Motor Mouth them proceeds to savage her as badly as if he had physically raped her. And All over the use of the term "self inflicted wound", no less. Poor Michelle could not even get in a word to explain that "self inflicted" not only means intentional, but accidential as well. Motor Mouth just keeps on motoring.
Then he throws her off the show. Isn't he a perfect gentleman!?
And later, I find out from Michelle's own mouth that the HardBall staff actually took her own copy of "Unfit To Command". Noone even had taken the trouble to research things and get their hands "dirty" by reading the book. These are great journalists aren't they?
And what is so telling is the fact that as they stumble down the path of irrelevence, they haven't a clue as to why they are losing market share, and working themselves out of a job.
Anyway, I will NEVER place any trust in ANYTHING that Matthews has to say anymore. BTY, will he still have a job when MSNBC dies a natural death soon? Or will he make a good producer for some Left Wing show soon?
Last night, whilst working on the computer, I got up and turned off Fox News, as I do not listen to Greta, Hilda, or whomever. I hate lawyers. So I tuned in to Scarborough Country on MSNBC. He is better than Greta by a long shot.
Well, after the show, HardBall came on and I forgot to get up and turn it off. Next thing I know, he is absolutely foaming at the mouth at one of the Swift Boat Vets. I'm ready to get up and turn this Jerk-off off. But I am lazy so I postpone it.
And next, up comes the mild mannered and absolutely cute little sweetie Michelle Malkin. Motor Mouth them proceeds to savage her as badly as if he had physically raped her. And All over the use of the term "self inflicted wound", no less. Poor Michelle could not even get in a word to explain that "self inflicted" not only means intentional, but accidential as well. Motor Mouth just keeps on motoring.
Then he throws her off the show. Isn't he a perfect gentleman!?
And later, I find out from Michelle's own mouth that the HardBall staff actually took her own copy of "Unfit To Command". Noone even had taken the trouble to research things and get their hands "dirty" by reading the book. These are great journalists aren't they?
And what is so telling is the fact that as they stumble down the path of irrelevence, they haven't a clue as to why they are losing market share, and working themselves out of a job.
Anyway, I will NEVER place any trust in ANYTHING that Matthews has to say anymore. BTY, will he still have a job when MSNBC dies a natural death soon? Or will he make a good producer for some Left Wing show soon?
John L, only u would defend that dumb buck-tooth wench Michelle Malkin.
her attitude was one of a spoiled little brat, making funny faces everytime Chris Matthews asked her a question, and when she made the statement about "self-inflicted", Chris Matthews asked her if she thought, in HER OWN OPINION that he had "shot himself", and she wouldnt answer the question, but instead tried to evade by referring to the book.
u seem to think that these Swiftboat Liars and those preaching their cause should be handled with kid gloves.
but, as with ANYBODY who makes wild accusations with suspicious motivations and very little evidence to back it up (just ask Kobe's accuser), they are being viewed with skepticism, thoroughly investigated and the burden of PROOF is being placed squarely where it belongs.. on them.
why SHOULDNT Chris Matthews rip into these people when they dont have any SOLID, CREDIBLE, LEGITIMATE evidence to back up their accusation, and when their military records and past statements contradict what they are saying?
what the Swiftboat Vets and their surrogates, like that idiotic Conservative prostitute Malkin, are doing is KNOWINGLY dropping unsubstantiated inuendo to cast doubt on John Kerry.
they KNOW they have nothing more than HERESY, they KNOW they cant prove it (look at Thurlow last night on Hardball, he ADMITTED it himself), but they are banking on the fact that mere innuendo, mere suggestion will cast enough doubt on John Kerry to help George Bush win.
thats SLIMEBALL politics, and it reflects badly on ANYONE supporting it.
and im sorry, but when u point the finger at someone else, there are 3 pointing right back at u.
the Swiftboat Liars deserve no slack, no leeway, and no special consideration.
Chris Matthews isnt like Scarbrough, who is a conservative that panders to others working towards the conservative cause.
your support of Scarbrough, A POLITICIAN, over more objective journalist shows your lack of ability to think critically.
her attitude was one of a spoiled little brat, making funny faces everytime Chris Matthews asked her a question, and when she made the statement about "self-inflicted", Chris Matthews asked her if she thought, in HER OWN OPINION that he had "shot himself", and she wouldnt answer the question, but instead tried to evade by referring to the book.
u seem to think that these Swiftboat Liars and those preaching their cause should be handled with kid gloves.
but, as with ANYBODY who makes wild accusations with suspicious motivations and very little evidence to back it up (just ask Kobe's accuser), they are being viewed with skepticism, thoroughly investigated and the burden of PROOF is being placed squarely where it belongs.. on them.
why SHOULDNT Chris Matthews rip into these people when they dont have any SOLID, CREDIBLE, LEGITIMATE evidence to back up their accusation, and when their military records and past statements contradict what they are saying?
what the Swiftboat Vets and their surrogates, like that idiotic Conservative prostitute Malkin, are doing is KNOWINGLY dropping unsubstantiated inuendo to cast doubt on John Kerry.
they KNOW they have nothing more than HERESY, they KNOW they cant prove it (look at Thurlow last night on Hardball, he ADMITTED it himself), but they are banking on the fact that mere innuendo, mere suggestion will cast enough doubt on John Kerry to help George Bush win.
thats SLIMEBALL politics, and it reflects badly on ANYONE supporting it.
and im sorry, but when u point the finger at someone else, there are 3 pointing right back at u.
the Swiftboat Liars deserve no slack, no leeway, and no special consideration.
Chris Matthews isnt like Scarbrough, who is a conservative that panders to others working towards the conservative cause.
your support of Scarbrough, A POLITICIAN, over more objective journalist shows your lack of ability to think critically.
I'm not generally in favor of shooting the messenger but perhaps Matthews should be an exception. The issues the Dems are pushing, right or wrong, will not go away or become unhinged because of half witted journalism. That would require a force greater than Hardball.
QUOTE
in HER OWN OPINION that he had "shot himself", and she wouldnt answer the question, but instead tried to evade by referring to the book.-Huey
No Louie, she was UNABLE to answer as Motor Mouth was talking all the time and would not allow her to answer. The fact that he was more rabid than usual shows that the Elite media and Collectivists, such as yourself, are coming unhinged.
I think that the straight jacket industry along with the makers of Flouxetine are going to have a brisk business on November 3, 2004.
Here is the "Buck Toothed" wench that "Calypso Louie" describes. Does this mean that everything else is also unbelievable? Isn't she an ugly "idiotic Conservative prostitute", or "hoe"? You make the call.
Actually, Huey Louie here only believes that people of "color" are beautiful. All the rest, especially orientals, are buck toothed, and ugly. I guess they would probably make good slaves too, right Huey Louie?
QUOTE
up comes the mild mannered and absolutely cute little sweetie Michelle Malkin.
thinking with your genitals always leads to good political discussion.
-smh-
QUOTE
No Louie, she was UNABLE to answer as Motor Mouth was talking all the time and would not allow her to answer.
a simple look at the transcripts exposes your BS for what it is.
Chris Matthews CLEARLY asked her to explain what she meant and CLEARLY asked her opinion if SHE felt he had "shot himself on purpose"..
she refused to answer the question, and REGARDLESS of how much "motor mouth" was talking, rather than use the time to answer the question with a simple "no", she went on and on referring to the book.
and THAT'S what i mean by inuendo.. unsubstantiated suggestion.. she, along with Thurlow, were trying to IMPLY to people that he injured himself as a way out of war, because they know that no matter wether they can prove it or not, the implication, the suggestion is enough to cast doubt.
Chris Matthew's "rabid" response had nothing to do with his political bias, it has to do with the fact that he prides himself and his show on not allowing BS spin and innuendo to pass on his show.
PERIOD.
read the transcript:
QUOTE
MATTHEWS: What do you mean by self-inflicted? Are you saying he shot himself on purpose? Is that what you‘re saying?
MALKIN: Did you read the book...
MATTHEWS: I‘m asking a simple question. Are you saying that he shot himself on purpose.
MALKIN: I‘m saying some of these soldiers...
MATTHEWS: And I‘m asking question.
MALKIN: And I‘m answering it.
MATTHEWS: Did he shoot himself on purpose.
MALKIN: Some of the soldiers have made allegations that these were self-inflicted wounds.
MATTHEWS: No one has ever accused him of shooting himself on purpose.
MALKIN: That these were self-inflicted wounds.
MATTHEWS: Your saying there are—he shot himself on purpose, that‘s a criminal act?
MALKIN: I‘m saying that I‘ve read the book and some of the...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: I want an answer yes or no, Michelle.
MALKIN: Some of the veterans say...
MATTHEWS: No. No one has ever accused him of shooting himself on purpose.
MALKIN: Yes. Some of them say that.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5765243/
MALKIN: Did you read the book...
MATTHEWS: I‘m asking a simple question. Are you saying that he shot himself on purpose.
MALKIN: I‘m saying some of these soldiers...
MATTHEWS: And I‘m asking question.
MALKIN: And I‘m answering it.
MATTHEWS: Did he shoot himself on purpose.
MALKIN: Some of the soldiers have made allegations that these were self-inflicted wounds.
MATTHEWS: No one has ever accused him of shooting himself on purpose.
MALKIN: That these were self-inflicted wounds.
MATTHEWS: Your saying there are—he shot himself on purpose, that‘s a criminal act?
MALKIN: I‘m saying that I‘ve read the book and some of the...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: I want an answer yes or no, Michelle.
MALKIN: Some of the veterans say...
MATTHEWS: No. No one has ever accused him of shooting himself on purpose.
MALKIN: Yes. Some of them say that.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5765243/
looks pretty clear to me. sorry John, no matter how "absolutely cute and sweet" Ms. Malkin is, u lose this one.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.