For those of you who dont know, this is a book about John Kerry and how he did not really deserve his medals. Has anyone read this? Is anyone planning to read this book? Is the author of this book the right wing equal of Michael Moore? I refused to go see Fahrenheit 9/11 because I felt that it would not be any more than misleading information, will this be more of the same?
I just saw Crossfire and they had the author of this book. The whole show was just a big yelling match and I got absolutely no real feel on this guy. James Carville was just going, "Ragin Cajun," on this guy and there was no valuable debate.
The one thing I did find interesting was that the Author of this book said he had not been seriously involved in politics for 32 years.
Edit: the word "not" makes a big difference when it comes to a sentences meaning
[ August 12, 2004, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: Promethius ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I have not read the book.
I don't plan on it.
I do know there is a lot of controversy on it and on the people who are backing it. Senator McClain called it and the commercials about it the same kind of lies and dirty tricks that some Republicans played on him when he was running against President Bush four years ago. He asked the President to condemn the book and the tactics of the politician in Texas who is behind it.
President Bush has not done so, but has stated that this organization has no connections to his campaign.
So yes, its a Republican Micheal Moore who has taken a lot of people who didn't know John Kerry very well and paid them to tell thier accounts of Viet Nam.
Some were mad at Kerry for his decision to be against the war when he returned to the US. I see that as a sign of moral strength.
One commander has already said he "Shouldn't have signed the statement" that is used in the book.
Basically, its a scum trick that reflects badly on the Republicans more than it tarnishes Kerry. The only people who are going to believe it are those who already are firmly against Kerry.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I have heard it is a hack job, and even the Bush White House is distancing themselves from it.
I'll see if I can find out more about it, but I doubt it is anything other than character assination similer to the "swiftVet" campaign.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Kwea, its produced by Swiftvets.
They want to run adds for thier book, but since those adds name the president, it violates the Election Finance laws.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Which, if true, is a perfect example of why the election finance laws are corrupt.
Dagonee
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Depends on what "served" means...or so they would tell you.
By their standards, everyone who was in Nam at the same time "served" with him, even if they never actually met him there.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I feel your pain Alexa. When I don't have time to sniff out the BS, I employ the best-worst-case scenario to compare candidates:
Best case scenario for Bush: Did serve in the national guard.
Worst case scenario for Kerry: Served in Vietnam but lied about receiving medal-worthy wounds.
Kerry wins the war record contest just by going to Vietnam. As Clinton said, while Bush, Cheney, and Clinton himself were doding the draft, Kerry said "send me."
What else is there to argue about?
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
I'm in the middle of the book, I found it pretty well researched, well thought out, it flowed nicely. He goes on a rant every now and then, (one in every three chapters or so for a bout two paragraphs) but overall I found it to be a pretty good book.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Given that numerous people have come out attacking the research of the book, including several claiming to be quoted out of context and such, what are you using in your consideration of how well researched it is?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
It has numbers on the top of every page.... Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
A mildly amusing spoof of the Swift Vets commercial:
Sauce for the Hamster Vets debunk Kerry's hamster rescue. By William Saletan Posted Monday, Aug. 9, 2004, at 1:52 PM PT
quote:Today a group of Massachusetts animal-care professionals, Swift Boat Veterinarians for Truth, launched an advertising campaign to counter claims made by John Kerry's family concerning his heroism and the family dog's misconduct in the alleged near-death of a hamster. A script of the advertisement follows:
"Hamster" (0:60)
Alexandra Kerry (video from Democratic National Convention): We were standing on a dock waiting for a boat to take us on a summer trip. Vanessa, the scientist, had packed all her animals including her favorite hamster. Our overzealous golden retriever got tangled in his leash and knocked the hamster cage off the dock. We watched as Licorice, the unlucky hamster, bubbled down to a watery doom. But my dad jumped in, grabbed an oar, fished the cage from the water, hunched over the soggy hamster and began to administer CPR.
Vet No. 1: I was on that boat coming to pick up John Kerry.
Vet No. 2: John Kerry has not been honest about what happened.
Vet No. 1: He's lying about the hamster.
Vet No. 3: I know John Kerry is lying about the hamster, because I treated the hamster for that injury.
(On-screen: X-ray)
Vet No. 4: I took care of that retriever since he was a puppy. He would never hurt another living thing. John Kerry has besmirched the honor of every dog who ever served.
(On-screen: guide dog leading veteran)
Vet No. 1: I don't even think he had a dog. Never heard one. Maybe a cat. Even that far away, my eyesight's pretty good.
Vet No. 5: He says it was a retriever. Well, retrievers go get things. That's what they do. The cage goes in the water, and the retriever doesn't go after it? Come on.
Vet No. 2: There was no leash. I looked up when I heard the dog. Went back to the house and got my binoculars just to make sure. I think he kicked the damn thing in the water himself.
(On-screen: caged hamster sinking)
Vet No. 5: OK, tell me this. How do you hook that cage with an oar? You want to tell me how an oar fits through a hole a hamster can't get out of?
Vet No. 4: The CPR thing. That kills me. I shook hands with that bastard once. Ever seen his fingers? Jesus. He probably crushed it right there if it wasn't dead already.
(On-screen: rodent carcass on pavement)
Vet No. 2: Yeah, I saw him do mouth-to-mouth once. Not on a hamster. Can we go off the record?
Vet No. 3: He lied to the girls. He lied to his country.
Vet No. 5: When the cage was in the water, you could not count on John Kerry.
(On-screen: bubbles emerging to surface)
Vet No. 4: He blamed the dog. He blamed the girls. Everyone but himself.
(On-screen: bubbles cease)
Announcer: Swift Boat Veterinarians for Truth is responsible for the content of this advertisement.
[ August 12, 2004, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: plaid ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I'm in the middle of the book, I found it pretty well researched, well thought out, it flowed nicely. He goes on a rant every now and then, (one in every three chapters or so for a bout two paragraphs) but overall I found it to be a pretty good book.
The problem is that some parts are so thoroughly misrepresented that it's impossible to know what to look for. I heard some lawyer talking about the falsehoods in the book on the radio. It's like me reading a book about the atmosphere on Mars. It doesn't matter how compelling the evidence is, I don't know enough about Mars to know if the author is representing the situation accurately.
I imagine that in a few weeks, there is going to be a number of sites listing the misrepresentations I heard on the radio.
[ August 14, 2004, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
Has John Kerry given a reason for not releasing his military record? And what, if anything is in his file that people think he doesnt want the public to see?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Um, don't you mean Bush?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
So true. At least Kerry served in the military. It seems, contrary to anything I've heard that Bush was irresponsible back then to put it mildly.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
Nope I dont mean Bush.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Well, here's a start.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
That's less biased? The headline itself is misleading by making it appear that the Republican Party funded the ad.
Sheesh.
Not that I put any stock in the ad. It's just the spin from the other side is almost as duplicitous as the ad itself.
Dagonee
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
No, it addresses the appearance that ad is a grassroots sort of thing, when in fact it is funded by one of the wealthiest republicans in Texas.
Look through the site. It's not a democrat mouthpiece.
[ August 14, 2004, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Swift Boat Veterans For Truth has 253 members, 60 of them decorated veterans with purple hearts of their own (presumably they were really earned), and includes 19 of the 23 commanders of Swift Boats (all but one of those who are still living) who served with Kerry's group and regularly went out on maneuvers with him, and observed from close range (often only a few yards away) as officers with command training how Kerry conducted his command.
They are going to have to be answered by Kerry and the Democrats. Denial, denunciation, ridicule, calling them partisan Republicans, trying to ignore them, is not going to work, because the Swift Boat Veterans are too credible and respectable.
The testimony of the eight or so crewmen who served under Kerry on his boat that the Democrats wine and dine and parade before the public is not enough to outweigh the testimony of 253 other veterans who served with Kerry. Jim Rassmann, the guy who Kerry is supposed to have heroicly pulled out of the water and who backs up Kerry's claim that they were taking fire from shore when Kerry pulled him out of the water, says that he was riding in the same boat with Kerry, while Kerry says he was riding in a boat behind his. One of them is confused. If Rassmann was blown into the water by a mine, he might have been a little dazed.
Kerry's claim that he spent Christmas of 1968 in Cambodia, telling Congress that it was "seared into his mind" that he did this, which now has been refuted so convincingly that Kerry himself has tried to amend his story and claim he never said he was "in" Camboda, only "near" it (but the record of what he said has caught up to him, when FoxNews confronted him with a copy of the Congressional Record and a letter of his that was published in the Boston Herald), further damages Kerry's credibility.
Studies are showing already that Independents who had been inclined to vote for Kerry are reconsidering their preference by large percentages as a result of seeing the WBVFT TV ad. Those who read the book will likely be convinced to turn against him even more. Here is the link to the study that WarsawPact provided on the Ornery American Forum: SBVFT ad is swaying independents
Kerry and the Democrats will have to answer this book and the TV ad sooner or later. Even if by a miracle Kerry is able to weather the storm long enough to eke out a narrow victory in November, this will dog Kerry throughout his administration so severely that he will be unable to accomplish anything.
But I really think that Kerry's campaign is going to go down in flames, and take the Democratic Party down with it this year. Almost any other candidate would have been able to beat Bush easily. But no--!
Don't blame me, I voted for Gen. Wesley Clark in the Democratic presidential primary here in Michigan.
[ August 14, 2004, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Why answer? Refutation ain't gonna stop dittoheads from repeating the charges. Brings to mind the charge that Governor Clinton used the USAirForce and UN"black helicopters" to run Arkansas as the center of a cocaine distribution ring. Obviously stupid even as a conspiracy theory, and continuously repeated for eight years.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
We must make allowances for Kerry's inaccuracies.
After all, the word "in" is a fairly imprecise figure of speech. We use this word loosely all the time:
"The check is in the mail."
"I was in Cambodia."
"I was in the Texas National Guards."
"There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
Edited to add:
"I invented the internet."
[ August 15, 2004, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I don't think that a group of disgruntled vets, most of whom have a grudge against Kerry for his awful Senate testimony, is anything resembling "credible".
It is about as credible as your claim that Kerry hasn't released his service records, or as a report that Bush deserved a Medal of Honor for hiding his so well....
SwiftVets has been throughly discredited, and even this administration has retreated from the claims that were made in these ads.
Kerry served, and his records weren't "lost", unlike Bush's, and he served honorably...or as honorably as anyone did at that time.
I had a lot of people who "served" with me when I was in the service, but not a one of them really knew what my job was, and not one of them really knew what happened to me when the NSA came knocking on my door.
If they were on the boat the night the actions happened then I care what they have to say. If they ever heard Kerry admit he did anything wrong, but they can't back up their claim, then I don't care what their opinions are on him.
Just because you operated a boat doesn't mean you know jack about what happened on any given mission UNLESS YOU WERE THERE!
Confusion happens under fire. It is a fact.
It doesn't mean someone was lying, or is hiding something.
I have a bigger problem with Kerry's attitude when he got home than anything he did over there, and I am sure that a lot of vets have neither forgotten or forgiven him for those very things.
But in a comparison of wartime records, Kerry beats Bush even if he was a weeny afterwords. At least he served instead of signing up for duties where he never even showed up.
At least he released his records to the public....the records he withheld are medical in nature, and no one is required to release them.
Bush felt he could, as the only injury he seemed to remember in 1973 was a severe nosebleed that lasted 3 years....
And he couldn't seem to remember 1972......not one thing about it at all.
Kerry's service record is public record, just do a Google search for it. Not releasing his medical records is a completely different thing.
Just ask a personnel office in the Army, the records aren't the same thing at all, and aren't even kept in the same place.
Kwea
[ August 15, 2004, 02:06 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I liked this one...even if it left the weeny part out of Kerry's record....
Click on the smiley!
[ August 15, 2004, 02:10 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Great post Kwea.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Beren, it is not just a matter of what the word "in" means. Kerry said a lot more than just "I was in Cambodia." In March 1986, Kerry said, during a speech on the Senate floor: "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 Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have 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."
Kwea, the 253 members of Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, 60 of whom have medals and purple hearts of their own, have not been "discredited" as you claim. Such false assertions accomplish nothing.
Aspectre, it is disrespectful in the extreme for you to call 253 decorated veterans "dittoheads."
The tactics you are using are not working for Kerry and the Democrats, either. Let me quote a highlight from that study I provided a link to in my previous post:
quote:Before the ad, 41.94% of Independents intending to vote for Kerry felt that they would “definitely” vote for him; 37.10% felt “most likely” to vote for him; 20.97% were “leaning” towards him; and none were “not sure.”
These levels of commitment changed markedly after viewing the Swift Boat ad.
Independents “definitely” voting for Kerry dropped to 29.03%. Those “most likely” to vote for him were relatively unchanged at 33.87%. Those “leaning” towards Kerry dropped to 9.68%. Finally, Independents “not sure” of their initial choice of Kerry increased substantially to 27.42%. This substantial change attests to the effectiveness of the Swift Boat ad’s attacks.
Do you get the picture? You cannot keep on ducking the issues raised by SBVFT and trying to dismiss them by denigrating the 253 veterans who were there and served with Kerry and have offered their testimony. Those tactics are not working.
But keep on using them if you want. Be stubborn and blind. Let Kerry and the Democrats do the same, and continue using such ineffectual tactics. Kerry's campaign will go down in flames, and take many other Democratic candidates down with it. They will deserve what they have chosen.
[ August 15, 2004, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Calling veterans "dittoheads" is strictly yours, RonLambert. So if ya wanna be offended, slap yourself in the face a few times and challenge yourself to a duel.
However, your misconstruction does illustrate why answering dittoheads is pointless.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
True, you didn't call the veterans dittoheads - you called the people who listened to and believed them dittoheads. And since you hold dittoheads in contempt for believing and repeating these charges, this implies that you think something worse of the people who made the charges.
Dagonee
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Thank you for once again proving my point.
[ August 15, 2004, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
What point is that? If it's that arguing with dittoheads is pointless, then you really need to explain yourself.
Which dittoheads are in favor of legalizing gay civil marriage, exactly?
Which dittoheads think the swiftvet ad is duplicitous?
I think the point you've actually proven is that you're far better at name-calling than you are at argumentation and debate.
Dagonee
[ August 15, 2004, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Why bother refuting this when you have a top Republican like McCain himself denouncing the swiftboat ads as being below the belt. If Kerry's opponent was someone with a sterling war record or, heh, just participated then that would be one thing. To have to refute anything in the face of yet another war-dodger-in-office seems kind of a waste. I think these ads are going to be an albatros around the Bush campaign's neck if they don't run from it like dropped hand grenade. When REPUBLICANS think such an ad is bad, be worried. Be very worried.
As for losing independents...well, Kerry can do that just fine on his own. His inability to handle relevant criticism like his voting record in regard to the war is far more damaging since, you know, that is pretty current and all. As John Stewart so appropriately noted last week in response to a lame Kerry rebuttal..."Are you TRYING to lose?!?!"
fil
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If I'm reading Ron right, he's a democrat who is concerned that not answering the ad will hurt the Democrats. He's offered several supporting points for his contention that the ad might sway undecided voters.
If a Democrat is worried about the ad, shouldn't Kerry be?
Dagonee
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
I have to disagree with Ron's concerns. While I won't use "dittoheads" to describe those folks who created the swiftboat ads, entering into a "debate" with them is like arguing on the internet: No one wins. How would addressing a war from over 30 years ago in any way help Kerry's campaign right now? It is at worst a very effective distraction and at best for Kerry a way to at least bring up the fact that at least he HAS a war record to look at, his opponent does not. Entering the quagmire on the terms of the Swiftvets would be suicidal. Let them spend gobs of money on pouring ads out like this. Kerry needs to worry about working on "the now" and coming up with a vision for 2005-2008 that is better than the one Bush currently has (or those, like us, that already have a vision of what that will look like with Bush in the White House).
Like all things, these ads are today issues that will sound whiny if they are continally played up until election time. The Swift vet backer blew his money a bit early as memories are short. We have a Republican convention to get through (which will in essense "reset" the media again) at least a half dozen more terrorist threat changes, debates (where Kerry, if he relaxes his speaking style, should "own" Bush), more ads, more commentary a few dozen more tell-all books and so on. For Kerry to dive into this mess would only legitamize their claims. He got 3 purple hearts, a silver and a bronze star. Those are on record. Why aren't they taking this up with the authorities that GAVE him those medals? He has them. If Swiftvets don't like it, they had 30 or more years to make an issue of it. Doing so now smacks of political convenience and, as McCain so rightly knows from his year 2000 encounter with the Bush team, smacks of the nastiest of bear baiting. Here is hoping Kerry doesn't go for the bait.
fil
[ August 15, 2004, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: fil ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Ron isn't a democrat, in the same way OSC isn't a democrat. They both PRETEND they are... but really have nothing in common with the democratic party.
That said, the charges that Kerry weren't in cambodia come down to people who had no access to the charts on Kerry's boat saying that they weren't in cambodia, while Kerry sent a note to his superior officers basically saying that he WAS, while he was in cambodia... his radarman (who would have access ot the charts) saying that they were within a couple miles, one way or the other, of the cambodian border, and Kerry's 34 years of saying he was in cambodia that night. Of course, the accusations that he wasn't which have surfaced in the last month, must obviously be completely unbiased *rolls eyes*
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Not to belabor the obvious, but whatever John McCain says is irrelevant, because he had no contact with Kerry in Vietnam, so has no way to judge veracity. And comparing the personal, first-hand, eyewitness testimony of 253 Swift Boat vets to the untrue stories that anonymous Bush supporters circulated about McCain during the Republican primary campaign in 2000, is not reasonable.
Hey, I supported McCain in 2000, and contributed money to his campaign. I still wish he were president, and I was so angry with the Republican party for the way the leadership orchestrated the Bush win in the primaries that I voted for Gore. In fact, I voted nearly a straight Democrat ticket in Michigan, thinking "Take that, and that, and that," as I flipped the levers. But as much as I respect McCain, I can see he has no standing to comment on the first hand, eye-witness testimony of the Swift Boat Vets.
The ONLY way the testimony of the Swift Boat Vets can be disproven is to have them submit to a lie detector test. But fair is fair, and if they do that, then so also should Kerry and the eight or so crewmen from his boat he parades around likewise submit to a lie detector test. If it is a matter of weight of testimony, the Swift Boat Vets are just as decorated as Kerry, and no one has challenged the legitimacy of their medals and purple hearts, and there are far more of them.
Some may suggest that this would set a dangerous precedent. But on reflection, I think we should have a law making it mandatory that all presidential candidates take lie detector tests about any controverted issue involving their past history. Wouldn't that be a riot?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I'd be satisfied with Dubya&Gang releasing taxpayer-payed-for records of what they've been doing in the WhiteHouse. About the only thing a lie detector measures is gullibility: the victim's reaction to the examiner.
And the only thing the charges prove is the gullibility of most of those involved.
quote:About one-third of the people who were exposed to a fake print advertisement that described a visit to Disneyland and how they met and shook hands with Bugs Bunny later said they remembered or knew the event happened to them. The scenario described in the ad never occurred because Bugs Bunny is a Warner Bros. cartoon character and wouldn’t be featured in any Walt Disney Co. property. this study...suggests how easily a false memory can be created...Memory is very vulnerable and malleable. People are not always aware of the choices they make. This study shows the power of subtle association changes on memory.
Pickrell and Loftus divided 120 subjects into four groups. The subjects were told...to..answer questions about a trip to Disneyland.
The first group read a generic Disneyland ad that mentioned no cartoon characters. The second group read the same copy and was exposed to a 4-foot-tall cardboard figure of Bugs Bunny that was casually placed in the interview room. No mention was made of Bugs Bunny. The third, or Bugs group, read the fake Disneyland ad featuring Bugs Bunny. The fourth, or double, exposure group read the fake ad and also saw the cardboard rabbit. ...30percent of the people in the Bugs group later said they remembered or knew they had met Bugs Bunny when they visited Disneyland and 40percent of the people in the double exposure group reported the same thing.
'Remember' means the people actually recall meeting and shaking hands with Bugs...'Knowing' is they have no real memory, but are sure that it happened... ...Creating a false memory is a process. Someone saying 'I know it could have happened' is taking the first step of actually creating a memory. If you clearly believe you walked up to Bugs Bunny, you have a memory.
...there is...the consequence of false memories or the ripple effects. People...exposed to the false advertising were more likely to relate...other things...not suggested in the ad, such as seeing Bugs and Mickey Mouse together or seeing Bugs in the Main Street Electrical Parade.
...people create their autobiographical references, or memory. Through this process they might be altering their own memories...Nostalgic advertising works in a similar manner...You may not have had a great experience the last time you visited Disneyland or McDonald’s, but the ads may...be creating the impression that they had a wonderful time and leaving viewers with that memory. If ads can get people to believe they had an experience they never had... The bottom line...is that the phony ad is making the difference.
So take one nostalgia group frittering away their time creating memories, add partisanship, one liar resentful that he isn't part of another's success implanting false memories into the group, and one very rich Republican offering fame&fortune to repeat those falsehoods... ...next thing ya know, there's a phony advertisement campaign to hammer the gullibles' memory into the shape desired.
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, and shame on me." The charges are the same manure the neo"conservative"s tossed at McCain. "You can fool some of the people all of the time" and only dittoheads take pride in membership.
[ August 15, 2004, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
"Some people just can't bring themselves to discuss things civilly without name calling" and only as...pectre takes pride in being a member of that group.
[ August 15, 2004, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Hmmm, a symbol that can only make a bunch of noise and spew venom. Fitting.
[ August 15, 2004, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Truth, Justice, and the American Way Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:For Kerry to dive into this mess would only legitamize their claims. He got 3 purple hearts, a silver and a bronze star. Those are on record. Why aren't they taking this up with the authorities that GAVE him those medals? He has them. If Swiftvets don't like it, they had 30 or more years to make an issue of it. Doing so now smacks of political convenience and, as McCain so rightly knows from his year 2000 encounter with the Bush team, smacks of the nastiest of bear baiting. Here is hoping Kerry doesn't go for the bait.
That is the best point that has been made so far, and one I have mentioned every time someone brings up the SV ad.
quote: Not to belabor the obvious, but whatever John McCain says is irrelevant, because he had no contact with Kerry in Vietnam, so has no way to judge veracity. And comparing the personal, first-hand, eyewitness testimony of 253 Swift Boat vets to the untrue stories that anonymous Bush supporters circulated about McCain during the Republican primary campaign in 2000, is not reasonable.
You are kidding right? The same people are trying to win an election again.
Also, all the vets in range of Kerry (in his actual presence during the raids) who initally signed off on the ad have withdrawn their support for them. Most have claimed that they were either mislead aboput the content of the ads of were quoted out of context.
Far more than 300+ soldiers "served" with Kerry. If you mean "were in the same country as he was, or the same division", which is as close as a lot of those vets ever came to Kerry themselves.
My favorite is the Doctor who claims to have treated Kerry, even though he can't find a single document to support that claim.
He probably treated him for a cold, 4 months before he left for the States.... Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Kwea, thanks!
As for discounting McCain because he wasn't there? Neither were any of those SwiftBoat guys! Like Kwea has been saying, unless they were ON the boat with Kerry (and those that were stood by him at the Democratic Convention) then they have as much to bitch about as one fisherman looking across the lake at another...minus the smoke, gunfire, adrenalin pumping, yelling, dying, and so on. Even without these sorts of distractions I can at best GUESS that a guy is catching fish on the lake near by me, but not much with the size of the fish.
I said it before and I will say it again...I hope Kerry doesn't give the Swift guys the time of day. The direct eyewitness accounts should be enough for folks and they have that with his crew. Supposition and downplaying done by others not on the boat with him is politics at its, sadly, most normal.
McCain is RUNNING THE CAMPAIGN in his home state for GWB. If one of the guys in charge of one entire state's campaigning says an ad is dumb, listen. When he is a vet, listen harder. When he is very publicly known as being a square player who speaks his mind and has the respect of many folks on both sides of the aisle (hint hint, look for independents in this group, too) then you listen all the more. Bush has distanced himself a bit from the ad by saying he didn't pay for it but more will needed to be done or else his own record during the war could make front page news again.
fil
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Kwea, you said:
quote:Also, all the vets in range of Kerry (in his actual presence during the raids) who initally signed off on the ad have withdrawn their support for them. Most have claimed that they were either mislead aboput the content of the ads of were quoted out of context.
Can you provide a link to back that up? I believe this is a completely false statement. One person was said to have "recanted" what he said, but then he said he was misquoted and mislead in the question, and since has signed a statement reaffirming his original endorsement of the statement signed jointly by the Swift Boat Vets For Truth.
And please try to let this sink in. The 253 swift boat vets served in the same swift boat group with Kerry. Swift boats never went out alone. They always went in groups to provide backup. The Swift Boat Veterans For Truth are all people who were in that group, and spent their time in boats often only a few yards away from Kerry's boat. Usually, a person a little distance away can see a lot more of the total picture of what is going on than someone who is on the same boat. Plus, the observers on other boats included the commanders, who were officers with command training like Kerry. They were far better qualified to evaluate Kerry's command competency that the crewmen on Kerry's boat. They were Kerry's peers.
Claims have been made about false memories being planted reinforced by comraderie and positive encouragement. Claims have been made about sheer partisanship. Are not such things far more likely to be true for a small group--the eight or so men the Democratic party wines and dines and parades around in front of crowds--that the far larger number of 253 swift boat veterans, which includes 19 of the 23 commanders of other swift boats in Kerry's group (some have died), and 60 men who won purple hearts and other medals? It is surely harder to get any kind of conspiracy to work with such a large group, than it is with only eight or so.
If you are going to weigh testimony like in a court of law, you have to weigh 253 testimonies against eight or so.
The man who said he was the medic who treated Kerry's wound for which he claimed a purple heart is speaking fully in harmony with the records and the testimony of others, such as Kerry's commanding officers, who have written their accounts of what they learned from the medical report and the testimony of others on the scene. He said that he had an assistant who filled out the paper work.
If it can be proven that this man is lying, that would be a good case to make. But it has to be proven, not just suggested out of wishful thinking. This sounds more like grasping at straws.
[ August 15, 2004, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The claims here are on your part. The revision of recorded history is on the part of a few partisan members of a nostalgia group. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." So it behooves you and those who make the charge to provide the proof. Not for us to disprove the extremely unlikely.
Now let's get a little real. If Kerry proves that the people involved are liars: then dittoheads scream about Kerry beating up on po' lil sufferin' innocent veterans.
So tell me, RonLambert, have you quit beating your wife? A simple yes or no answer, please.
[ August 15, 2004, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
I was thinking about the use of the word "dittohead" in this thread. Doesnt the word "ditto" mean also? An example of this can be seen in the conversation I created below
quote:Maria: I think Johnny is poop Mike: Ditto
so, are we saying these people are "also heads?"
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Somewhat, 'dittohead' is Limbaugh's appellation for his fans, from every callers' opening statement, "I love you Rush and agree with everything you say." which was replaced with the greeting "Dittos, Rush." to save time.
[ August 16, 2004, 12:16 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I hate to break it to you, but SPEAKING AS A FORMER MEDIC WHO USE TO FILL OUT DR'S PAPERWORK, the Doc's name stays the same no matter who fills out the paperwork!
If a Doc treats someone and then has an assistant fill it out, the Doc's name is still on the records.
His name isn't anywhere near Kerry's wartime injury reports. And no one , including Kerry, remembers the guy treating him at all.
Try reading some of the links further up in the page. I got a lot of info from there.
BTW, have you ever been in the service? I was, and there were plenty of people who had the same MOS as me, in the same area, on the same post....and never knew me, not even to say hi to. That was State-side too, and not under fire.
Thee were thousands of Vets who can truthfully claim they served with Kerry on the Swift Boats, but how many were present when he was injured?
And I notice you don't have anything to say about the bias these men have against Kerry for his comments once he came home. Try actually reading this , and PLEASE notice that almost to a man they lambaste him (not that they don't have a point) for those comments....but then claim to be impartial.
Here are some actual quotes....
quote: HOFFMANN: Well, I can tell you that I did not know Kerry personally. I didn't ride the boat with him. But I was on many combat missions with boats in the same group against the same enemies at the same time, and I know enough about Kerry to feel very confident that he is not qualified.
But he felt confident enough to claim he "knew" Kerry was lying about specific events he wasn't present for, and under closer questioning admits to never knowing Kerry at all at the time....
So, when you said McCain should not be involved in this discussion, did you know this?
quote: CBS News: "The Press Conference Was Set Up By The Same People Who Tried To Discredit John McCain's Reputation." "The [May, 2004 Swift Boat Veterans for Truth"] press conference was set up by the same people who tried to discredit John McCain's reputation in Vietnam service when McCain faced George W. Bush for the Republican nomination in 2000. It's the same strategy used to go after Georgia Senator Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam."
I tell you what...I found most of this within 1 hour of looking for details, so in case you can't figure out how to click a Link, here is some more...in it's entirety....
quote: McCain Says It's Dishonest & Dishonorable-Same Thing That Happened to Him in 2000.
"Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry's military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well. 'It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me,' McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press, referring to his bitter Republican primary fight with President Bush'." [AP, 8/5/04]
McCain Says Ad Makers Don't Have Facts.
The ad, scheduled to air in a few markets in Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin, was produced by Stevens, Reed, Curcio and Potham, the same team that produced McCain's ads in 2000. "I wish they hadn't done it," McCain said of his former advisers. "I don't know if they knew all the facts." [AP, 8/5/04]
McCain Calls on Bush to Condemn It - No Comment From Bush
Asked if the White House knew about the ad or helped find financing for it, McCain said, 'I hope not, but I don't know. But I think the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad." Later, McCain said the Bush campaign has denied any involvement and added, 'I can't believe the president would pull such a cheap stunt'. The White House did not immediately address McCain's call that they repudiate the spot." [AP, 8/5/04]
Same Tactics Used Against McCain in 2000.
"In 2000, Bush's supporters sponsored a rumor campaign against McCain in the South Carolina primary, helping Bush win the primary and the nomination. McCain's supporters have never forgiven the Bush team. McCain said that's all in the past to him, but he's speaking out against the anti-Kerry ad because he believes it's bad for the political system. 'It reopens all the old wounds of the Vietnam War, which I spent the last 35 years trying to heal,' he said." [AP, 8/5/04]
McCain Deplores This Kind of Politics
"I deplore this kind of politics. I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. I think George Bush served honorably in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War." [AP, 8/5/04]
Swift Vets Funded By Longtime Texas Bush Contributors
Fox News: "Many Of Them Are Republicans Who Have Contributed To And Backed Various Bush Campaigns And Causes Over The Decades" "Kerry's military service was an asset during the primaries; critics hoped to transform it into a liability now. The GOP says it's not involved with the veterans criticizing Kerry, but many of them are Republicans who have contributed to and backed various Bush campaigns and causes over the decades." [Fox News, Special Report, Cameron, 5/4/04]
Dallas Morning News: "Veterans' Group Critical of Kerry Backed by Bush Supporter." Bob Perry, a major supporter of President Bush and the Republican Party, is the biggest financial backer of a veterans group seeking to discredit Democrat John Kerry's military service, according to federal records. Perry, a Houston homebuilder, gave $100,000 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group that has been critical of Kerry's anti-war activities after he returned from Vietnam. That accounted for two-thirds of the organization's receipts to date. [DMN, Slater, 7/23/04]
Swift Vets Operated By Same People Who Tried to Discredit McCain in 2000
CBS News: "The Press Conference Was Set Up By The Same People Who Tried To Discredit John McCain's Reputation." "The [May, 2004 Swift Boat Veterans for Truth"] press conference was set up by the same people who tried to discredit John McCain's reputation in Vietnam service when McCain faced George W. Bush for the Republican nomination in 2000. It's the same strategy used to go after Georgia Senator Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam." [CBS Evening News, Pitts, 5/4/04]
Salon.Com: "Same Vicious Techniques They Used Against McCain" "Behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are veteran corporate media consultant and Texas Republican activist Merrie Spaeth, who is listed as the group's media contact… In 2000, Spaeth participated in the most subterranean episode of the Republican primary contest when a shadowy group billed as 'Republicans for Clean Air' produced television ads falsely attacking the environmental record of Sen. John McCain in California, New York and Ohio. While the identity of those funding the supposedly 'independent' ads was carefully hidden, reporters soon learned that Republicans for Clean Air was simply Sam Wyly -- a big Bush contributor and beneficiary of Bush administration decisions in Texas -- and his brother, Charles, another Bush "Pioneer" contributor." [Salon.com, Conalson, 5/4/04]
Swift Vets Hire Private Investigator to Dig Into Kerry's Past
Dallas Morning News: "P.I. Digs Into Kerry's War Past Group Defends Investigation; Veterans Say Comments Distorted." "Opponents of John Kerry have hired a Dallas-area private investigator to gather information aimed at discrediting his military service, say several veterans who served with the Massachusetts Democrat in Vietnam. Several veterans who have been contacted in recent days accused the private investigator, Tom Rupprath of Rockwall, of twisting their words to produce misleading and inaccurate accounts that call into doubt the medals Mr. Kerry received for his service. 'They're just distorting things,' said Jim Wasser, who served with Mr. Kerry. 'They have nothing to go after John Kerry for, so now they're trying to discredit him'." [DMN, Slater, 7/13/04]
Salon.com: "How Low Will the Swift Boat Veterans Sink?" A private detective retained by 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth'-- the Texas-based group seeking to discredit John Kerry's military record -- is contacting veterans who may have information about the incidents that led to Kerry's Vietnam decorations. According to a former Kerry crew member, several of the Massachusetts senator's old Navy comrades have refused to talk with the detective, a former FBI agent named Thomas Rupprath -- and some have complained that the detective tried to put damaging words in their mouths. Rupprath's efforts are clearly intended to discredit Kerry's military record, which should surprise nobody familiar with the 'Swift Boat' group. Its leaders are conservative Republicans embittered over Kerry's later antiwar activism." [Salon.com, 7/13/04]
Narrator: "Here's what these men think about John Kerry." None of the Following Speakers in This Ad Served on Either of Kerry's Two SWIFT Boats (PCF44 & PCF94). Absolutely NONE of these men served on John Kerry's SWIFT boats in Vietnam. Some of them were in Vietnam at the same time, some of them did serve on SWIFT boats but none of them were on John Kerry's SWIFT boat.
"John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam." George Elliott was NOT a crewmate of John Kerry's
Was Elliott Honest in 1996 When He Said This of Kerry? "The fact that he chased an armed enemy down is not something not to be looked down upon but it was an act of courage. And the whole outfit served with honor..."[T]here was no question that it was above and beyond anything that we had seen down there in that case at that time frame...It just so happened that this one was so outstanding that the Silver Star was eventually awarded." [Kerry Press Conference, 10/27/96]
In 1969, Elliott Wrote This to Describe John Kerry's Fitness as a SWIFT Boat Commander "In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, LTJG Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at every opportunity. On one occasion, while in tactical command of a three boat operation his units were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush. This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several KIA. LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach. He has of his own volition learned the Vietnamese language and is instrumental in the successful Vietnamese training program. During the period of this report LTJG Kerry has been awarded the Silver Star medal, the Bronze Star medal, the Purple Heart medal (2nd and 3rd awards)."[U.S. Navy, Officer Fitness Report signed by George Elliott; 18, Dec 1969]
Elliott on Presenting Kerry the Silver Star: He Went "Above & Beyond the Call of Duty." "The [Silver Star] ceremony [for John Kerry] was meant to be a morale booster,' Commander George Elliot recalled. 'We were trying to pay tribute to Kerry and the others for going above and beyond the call of duty. The Silver Star is always a big deal." [Tour of Duty, 2004, Brinkley; p. 294]
"He is lying about his record." Al French was NOT a crewmate of John Kerry's
Kerry's Not Lying And Neither Are the People That Back Up Kerry's Military Actions: the U.S. Navy Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, Commander U.S. Naval Forces in Vietnam Admiral John Hyland Commander in Chief U.S. Pacific Fleet Presidential Historian Douglas Brinkley the Boston Globe James Rassmann and the Crewmates of PCF-44 & PCF 94.
"I know John Kerry is lying about his first purple heart, because I treated him for that injury." Louis Letson, Now Part of the Republican Veterans Efforts to Smear Kerry, WAS NOT the Doctor That Signed Kerry's Sick Call Sheet and Was NOT a Kerry Crewmate
Letson Offers NO PROOF He Treated Kerry. Despite Letson's claims to have treated Kerry, he is not listed on any document as having treated Kerry after the 12/2/68 firefight. Offering only an account of dates and places-which is readily available in Kerry's biography and media accounts-Lester has produced nothing to verify his treatment of Kerry. Another Doctor Signed Kerry's Sick Call Sheet. Regarding Dr. Letson's recollection of Mr. Kerry's wound, Michael Meehan, a campaign spokesman, noted that a different person, J. C. Carreon, had signed the "sick call sheet" summarizing treatment of the injury, and asked, "Who is this guy? How do we know that he was the doctor who treated him?" The aides produced several veterans to attest to Mr. Kerry's bona fides. [New York Times, 5/4/04]
Letson Didn't Record His Memories of Vietnam Until Kerry's Emergence in 2003. "Letson says that last year, as the Democratic campaign began to heat up, he told friends that he remembered treating one of the candidates many years ago. In response to their questions, Letson says, he wrote down his recollections of the time." [National Review Online, 5/4/04]
"John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star. I know. I was there. I saw what happened." Van O'Dell was NOT a crewmate of John Kerry's
The Simple Truth: John Kerry was nominated for the Bronze Star by James Rassmann and eyewitness accounts, official naval documents and independent analyses all state that Kerry and his crew were under fire on the day in question. Official Naval documents available to the public at the Naval Historical Center in Washington, DC and available at www.JohnKerry.com include the after action reports, also known as "spot reports." These reports contain the details of the four boats involved in these actions on March, 13. 1969-including Kerry's boat PCF-94. These reports contain specific details of time, personnel, combat action and even maps. These report specifically detail the boats involved receiving, "HEAVY A/W (automatic weapons) AND S/A (small arms) FROM BOTH BANKS. FIRECONTINUED FOZNABOUT 5000 METERS."
Kerry's injury report for this action, also available at the Naval Historical Center in Washington DC, reads:
KERRY, JOHN F., XXXXXX, USN WOUNDED IN ACTION - 13 March 1969 vicinity of Song Bay Hap, South Vietnam. Received shrapnel wounds in the left buttocks and contusions on the right forearm when a mine detonated close to PCF-94 while engaged in operations on river. CONDITIONS AND PROGNOSIS EXCELLENT. RESULT OF HOSTILE ACTION
The Boston Globe, which has repeatedly criticized John Kerry for any exaggeration or misstatement for the past 30 years, did their own investigation into Kerry's military career. The Globe wrote in their book, "John F. Kerry; A Complete Biography by the Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best", that a mine blast threw James Rassmann into the water and made him "a bobbing target as he dodged the bullets whizzing around him." [p.106]
Eyewitness account from James Rassmann also detail the fact that PCF-94 and other boats were under fire. In March of 2004, Rassmann, a registered Republican who had not seen Kerry in more than 30 years before their reunion in Iowa this year, recalled the following: "Viet Cong snipers fired at him, and Rassmann submerged over and over to avoid being hit. The bullets came from both banks, and Rassmann had nowhere to go. He began thinking his time had come, but the fifth time he came up, he saw the convoy had turned around. Kerry had ordered the boats back to pick up the man overboard. Kerry's boat, under heavy fire, sidled up to the struggling soldier. Rassmann tried to scramble up a cargo net at the bow but was too exhausted to make it all the way. He clung to the net as bullets whizzed past." [Los Angeles Times, 3/13/04]
Kerry's Bronze Star citation recounts the events of that day and include this sentence, "In addition, all units began receiving small arms fire and automatic weapons fire from both banks." Versions of this citation were signed by the Secretary of the Navy and the Commander of U.S. Naval Forces in Vietnam. This citation is available for the public to read at www.JohnKerry.com.
"His account of what happened and what actually happened are the difference between night and day." Jack Chenowith was NOT a crewmate of John Kerry's
Mysterious Vet Named Chenoweth Appears Out of No Where to Accuse U.S. Navy & Fellow Vietnam Vets of Lying: Its Not Kerry's Account on the Bronze Star Citation-It's the Account of the U.S. Navy, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt Commander U.S. Naval Forces in Vietnam and backed up by Presidential Historian Douglas Brinkley, the Boston Globe, James Rassmann and the Crewmate of PCF-44 & PCF 94.
"John Kerry has not been honest." Roy Hoffmann was NOT a crewmate of John Kerry's
"Hoffman acknowledged he had no first-hand knowledge to discredit Kerry's claims to valor and said that although Kerry was under his command, he really didn't know Kerry much personally." [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 5/7/04]
Hoffman's Boss Awarded Kerry Silver Star & Bronze Star: "Captain Roy Hoffman" was Admiral Zumwalt's "trusty aide."
This is What Zumwalt Said About Kerry: "KERRY's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service." [Kerry Bronze Star Citation; www.JohnKerry.com]
Former Senator Bob Kerrey Described Roy Hoffman as "The Classic Body Count Guy" Hoffmann was a cigar-chomping officer who brandished an M-16 assault rifle and wore a revolver when he visited troops in the field. "He was the classic body-count guy," Kerrey says. "Bunkers destroyed, hooches destroyed, sort of scorekeeper." [New York Times Magazine, 4/29/01]
Hoffman Thought His Rules of Engagement in Vietnam Were "Too Restrictive" In the summer of 1968, Hoffmann complained to his superiors in Pearl Harbor that the prevailing rules of engagement were too constrictive. "This was war," Hoffmann said in an interview last month. "This wasn't Sunday school." He made what he said was a pro forma request for looser rules, which was granted. Previously, Hoffmann said, military personnel had not been permitted to fire unless they were fired upon. Under the new rules, he said, they could attack if they felt threatened. "I told them you not only have authority, I damned well expect action," Hoffmann recalled. "If there were men there and they didn't kill them or capture them, you'd hear from me." [New York Times Magazine, 4/29/01]
Hoffman Described by Fellow Vets as "Hotheaded", "Bloodthirsty" and "Egomaniacal" "Interviews with various Swift boat veterans turned up descriptions of Hoffman as 'hotheaded,' 'bloodthirsty,' and 'egomaniacal'." [Tour of Duty, Brinkley, 2004, p. 105]
"He lacks the capacity to lead" Adrian Lonsdale was NOT a crewmate of John Kerry's
Adrian Lonsdale in 1996: "As far as I was concerned, the war was won over there in that part for that period. And it was mainly won because of the bravado and the courage of the young officers that ran the boats, the SWIFT boats and the Coast Guard cutters and Senator Kerry was no exception." [Kerry for Senate Press Conference, 10/27/96]
"When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry." Larry Thurlow was NOT a crewmate of John Kerry's
Thurlow's Statements Do Not Fit With History - Says Navy is Lying? On the day Kerry pulled Rassmann from the water, "Larry Thurlow had maneuvered his PCF-51 over by this time and he hopped aboard PCF-3 to offer assistance. The boat was in shambles but they were still shooting too hard to assess any damage" "BOATS RECEIVED HEAVY A/W [automatic weapons] & S/A [small arms] FROM BOTH BANKS…ALL BOATS AND MSF RETURNED FIRE…PCF-94 [Kerry's boat] PICKED UP MSF ADVISOR WHO WENT OVERBOARD…PCF-94 TOWED PCF-3." [Tour of Duty, Brinkley, 2004, p. 314; U.S. Navy After Action Report: http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/SpotReports_March1969.pdf]
Larry Thurlow Even Praised Kerry Despite Coming From Different Backgrounds: "John was sharp as a tack... But he came from a background most of us couldn't understand." [Tour of Duty, Brinkley, 2004 p. 300]
"John Kerry is no war hero." Bob Elder was NOT a crewmate of John Kerry's
Kerry's Silver Star Citation: "For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action while serving with Coastal Division ELEVEN engaged in armed conflict with Viet Cong insurgents in An Xuyen Province, Republic of Vietnam, on 28 February 1969."
Kerry's Bronze Star Citation: "For heroic achievement while serving with Coastal Division ELEVEN engaged in armed conflict with Viet Cong communist aggressors in An Xuyen Province, Republic of Vietnam, on 13 March 1969."
These citations are available for the public to read at www.JohnKerry.com
"John Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam." Shelton White was NOT a crewmate of John Kerry's
Jim Rassmann, Says Kerry Risked His Life to Save Him: "Rassmann was 21 at the time, a Special Forces lieutenant in charge of a company of American and Chinese fighters. On that day, they traveled on a convoy of five patrol boats led by the 25-year-old Kerry, a Navy lieutenant - and they were on the run, being chased down the Bay Hap River by enemy soldiers firing guns and rockets. The group had already lost one soldier that day. As they sped down the river, one boat was blown out of the water, and then another. An explosion wounded Kerry in the arm and threw Rassmann into the river. Rassmann dove to the bottom to avoid being run over by the other boats. When he surfaced, he saw the convoy had gone ahead. Viet Cong snipers fired at him, and Rassmann submerged over and over to avoid being hit. The bullets came from both banks, and Rassmann had nowhere to go. He began thinking his time had come, but the fifth time he came up, he saw the convoy had turned around. Kerry had ordered the boats back to pick up the man overboard. Kerry's boat, under heavy fire, sidled up to the struggling soldier. Rassmann tried to scramble up a cargo net at the bow but was too exhausted to make it all the way. He clung to the net as bullets whizzed past. 'Next thing I knew, John came out in the middle of all this,' Rassmann says. 'I couldn't believe it. He was going to get killed. He ran to the edge, reached over with his good arm [Kerry had been wounded in his right arm] and pulled me over the lip.' Rassmann later recommended Kerry for the Silver Star, and was upset when the Army instead awarded Kerry a lesser Bronze Star with a 'V' for valor." [Los Angeles Times, 3/13/04]
"He dishonored his country. He most certainly did." Joe Ponder was NOT a crewmate of John Kerry's
Kerry's Silver Star Citation: "His actions were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service."
Kerry's Bronze Star Citation: "KERRY's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service."
These citations are available for the public to read at www.JohnKerry.com
"He betrayed all his shipmates. He lied before the Senate." Grant Hibbard was NOT a crewmate of John Kerry's
Kerry's Crewmates Are "All Fiercely Loyal" "Vietnam crewmates, [are] all fiercely loyal to John Kerry." [AP, 7/29/04] Just This Week, General Tommy Franks Came to Kerry's Defense on Sean Hannity's Show. When pressed by conservative talk show host Sean Hannity, retired General and Former Commander in Chief of Central Command, Tommy Franks believed Kerry's summary of what other soldiers had told him about unfortunate actions by a few U.S. soldiers in Vietnam: "I'm not sure that -- that activities like that didn't take place. In fact, quite the contrary. I'm sure that they did." [Fox News, Hannity & Colmes, 8/3/04]
Pulitzer Prize Winning Series Further Backs Kerry. In April of 2004, the Toledo Blade was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for their series detailing the atrocities committed by a few American soldiers in Vietnam. The series was based upon the Tiger Force which operated for several months in the Central Highlands of Vietnam. [http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=SRTIGERFORCE]
"I served with John Kerry. John Kerry cannot be trusted." Bob Hildreth was NOT a crewmate of John Kerry's
But Jim Wasser Was: "If John Kerry came to us and said he had one more mission and we're going to hell, he'd have a full crew" -- Jim Wasser [Dallas Morning News, 7/29/04]
Let me know if you need it drawn in crayon....
I have my own doubts about Kerry, but I don't like people feeding me drivel and claiming it's fillet mignon. There is enough to consider just looking at his record of gaffes about his service, or his comments about other vets when he got back from Nam.
He isn't saying he is a hero, as a matter of fact he said there were no heroes.
But at least he served his time and did the best he could under difficult circumstances.
That is more than Bush can say.
I like to hear critism based on idealogy, but this is bunk, plain and simple.
Kwea
Kwea
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Kwea, thank you for all the time and effort you used to compile that list of statements. One or two are of actual interest. I would like further explanation from George Elliott of his past statements. But many of the other statements praising Kerry such as the one by Zumwalt are obviously just boilerplate rhetoric, something you say automatically when a medal is given, whether you know anything personally about the matter or not.
I noticed the statements you selected kept emphasizing the totally irrelevant point that the Swift Boat vets in the ad who criticize Kerry were not in Kerry's boat. As I have pointed out before, and as any reasonable person would admit, people, especially officers with command training, who were in boats in the same group that conducted missions with Kerry's boat, were actually in a better position to see the whole picture of what was going on that someone on Kerry's boat, and fellow officers were better qualified to evaluate Kerry's conduct as a commander.
The quotes you provide are just a spin production of the Democratic Party. You still are not going to diminish, with such tactics, the weight of 253 decorated veterans bearing public testimony of the first hand eyewitness accounts, against the mere eight or so that the Democrats wine and dine and parade before crowds. Even then, one of the people on Kerry's own boat, the gunner, Steve Gardner, does not stand with the other crewmates, and has expressed negative views that contradict the coached comments of the Kerry brethren. So the statement you quoted that ALL Kerry's crewmates stand with him is not true. If the writer of those statements was so careless about facts as that, what other facts was he careless about?
[ August 16, 2004, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Kwea.
That was some fine reporting.
On "Dittoheads" as well...I think the term has also been taken to mean that one can know what a Rush fan thinks simply by listening to Rush. The fans pretty much just mouth things that Rush has said earlier that day. Also, with few execeptions, his phone callers are all just repeating his words back to him...thus "Ditto, ditto." I heard Rush was making fun of this idea of his fans by embracing the criticism and running with it. That was what I heard a looong time ago, though.
fil
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Ron (a Republican in Democrat clothing?? ), I am curious...the crew mates of Kerry are "wined and dined" and "Coached" with their support but you don't seem to make the claim for the "253 decorated vets." Do you think those 253 independently got together just recently and decided to put an ad together? Were they coached at all? Or were they just speaking their 30+ year old memories of "first hand accounts" of seeing his boat in a group of other boats because it suddenly came to them...those medals are wrong! He should never have gotten them! You are clearly not saying this out of concern for the Democratic ticket. While I agree that Kerry's crewmates that support him are surely enjoying the attention and dinners, interviews, etc. but to think that these 253 vets suddenly came to their senses after 30 years and decided to protest Kerry's medals and actions...well, that seems a bit naive and partisan on your part. Why is one group only partisan politics and the other noble and just? Your Republican fringe is showing.
fil
[ August 16, 2004, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: fil ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Considering the Republican party seems to be doing everything it can to distance themselves from this dreck I wouldn't call it his Republican fringe showing. More his I Don't Like Kerry fringe. And by fringe I mean official stance.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
What the world needs is fewer Dittoheads and more Parrotheads...
AJ
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"The quotes you provide are just a spin production of the Democratic Party. You still are not going to diminish, with such tactics, the weight of 253 decorated veterans bearing public testimony of the first hand eyewitness accounts,"
Ron- Did you fail to notice that many of the accounts AREN'T eyewitness, but claim to be? Kwea is pointing out that many of these vets make claims they self-admittedly have no basis to be able to make.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Can I be a Radiohead?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: As I have pointed out before, and as any reasonable person would admit, people, especially officers with command training, who were in boats in the same group that conducted missions with Kerry's boat, were actually in a better position to see the whole picture of what was going on that someone on Kerry's boat, and fellow officers were better qualified to evaluate Kerry's conduct as a commander.
I guess you didn't get what I was saying about that, because I HAVE commented on it several times. That's OK, there was a lot of info there...
I guess I am not a reasonable person, because I don't see any proof at all that they were in any situation that would provide them with a "better" look at what happened than the people in his boat. Even the people who were in the boat sometimes had conflicting reports on what happened. Not because they were lying, ad has been implied repeatedly, but because even in the same boat people see thing differently. In action, the commanders of the boats have enough to worry about without paying absolute attention to someone else boat. Under fire things get a bit hairy.
Even in peacetime, I wouldn't give their opinions much weight, not after they admitted their bias against him.
Unless they were involved in the actual missions under question, and can prove they were within 20 feet or so, they simply don't matter. Thousands of soldiers "served" with Kerry, but only 250 (+/-) signed this ad...and quite a few of the ones who did were outraged when the ads were aired.....check out the CBS site for further detains...it's in the links I posted earlier....
What I find interesting is that you discount all their earlier statements about Kerry...you know, the statements that occurred much closer to the events that the statements they are now making. Also, those original statements were made BEFORE Kerry spoke before Congress.
Almost every single Vet in the Swift-Vet ad mentioned their anger and disgust toward Kerry resulting from his testimony , but you won't admit that that very anger and feeling of betrayal might have cause them to change their opinions of him after the fact !
I can see that you have made up your mind, so I probably won't bother to reply again.
There are enough issues to consider without bothering with this tripe any further than I have already.
Good or bad, at least Kerry has a record to consider. While I feel that that is important, it isn't the most important thing I will consider on election day. I was in the service, and received an Honorable discharge, but I would be a horrible President.
Most of the Vets I know would be as well.
Kwea
Posted by HenryW (Member # 6053) on :
I have been away for a bit, but thought I should comment here.
First - the Swift Boat Veterans is registered for IRS purposes as a 527 committee. This is a political committe and has little to do with a veterans organization. Even worse, it is that special designation we have from campaign finance law that allows tons of money to go to Anti campaigns (Lord help us if we did something like tout someone's virtues instead of attacking their opponent's flaws).
Second - their initial funding amounted to around $175,000 (you didn't think car washes could drum up enough cash to run swing state ads did you?). The money came from 5 sources. Senator McCain is upset becaus 4 of the 5 were responsible for a similar episode in the 2000 primary that publically spread untruths about his service record. Sen. McCain is much like me - this doesn't appear to be consequence.
Third - I have read a few posts of folks supporting the group that have yet to acknowledge that there are explicit untruths in comments from the group regarding Kerry's actions in getting some metals and rewards. Folks, this information is not contestable in any intelligent way - any banter that is so reckless with the facts becomes white noise.
Fourth - The arthur of "Unfit" (O'Neill) is a long time anti-Kerry player (as early as 1972) and is most upset with Kerry for his stance on the war after his return state side. His book was, at least partially, funded by the same noted above. No big issue here - just providing data.
Fifth - Retired Admiral Hoffman (a leader of the group) only became interested in the Anti campaign after he was cast in a less than glowing light in a Kerry biography.
So here is my deal - While these folks can band together and express their opinion of Kerry and be very upset with his Veterans against the Vietnam War association, they are not granted a license to lie. I do not think that the 253 are lying. I do KNOW that a small number of folks either in the group or sponsored by the group have lied in a blatant attempt to discredit. Unfortunately that discredits anything that comes from that group until such time as they acknowledge same and appropriately take action against the responsble members.
Pretty darn simple when you run the logic - at least to this farm boy...
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote: As I have pointed out before, and as any reasonable person would admit, people, especially officers with command training, who were in boats in the same group that conducted missions with Kerry's boat, were actually in a better position to see the whole picture of what was going on that someone on Kerry's boat, and fellow officers were better qualified to evaluate Kerry's conduct as a commander.
This statement boggles my mind. Apparently I am not a reasonable person either.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Icky, if you were you wouldn't be living in "Hurricane Alley", would you?
If I was, I wouldn't be planning on moving there this winter....
Kwea
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
*bump*
Don't know if anyone has seen this, but Thurlow's account is unravelling pretty badly:
(To me, the most important part of this story is not what Kerry is charging, but the discrepancy between the records regarding Thurlow's Bronze Star and what he is claiming today. I'm excerpting that part of the article, which is from CNN.)
quote:Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is registered as an independent "527" committee, named for a section of the federal tax code. Its contributors include several major Republican donors, and Kerry's campaign said none of the men in the campaign commercial served in the same boat as the Democratic nominee.
Group member Larry Thurlow, who appears in one ad, told CNN earlier this month that Kerry's boat fled from a mine blast that damaged another vessel in a March 1969 incident for which Kerry won the Bronze Star.
"Our boats immediately put automatic weapons fire onto the left bank in case there was an ambush in conjunction with the mine," said Thurlow, a fellow Navy officer in a nearby boat at the time. "It soon became apparent there was no ambush."
But Rassmann, the man whose rescue from the water in that incident resulted in Kerry being decorated, said August 5 that Thurlow "has a very unusual recollection of events."
"I was receiving fire in the water every time I came up for air," said Rassmann, who has campaigned for Kerry since January.
Thurlow's account differs not only from those of Kerry and Rassmann but also that given in the Navy's letter awarding Kerry the Bronze Star. The letter finds Kerry exhibited "great personal courage under fire" in rescuing Rassmann, an Army officer who recommended Kerry for the decoration.
Rassmann said he agreed with another Vietnam veteran, Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, who has called the ad in which Thurlow appears "dishonest and dishonorable."
The Washington Post reported Thursday that Thurlow's military records, which the newspaper obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, show that he also came under fire during the same skirmish as Kerry and received the Bronze Star.
But Thurlow told the Post he would consider his own medal "fraudulent" if coming under enemy fire was the basis for it.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Well, as I hoped they would, the Kerry campaign has rebutted most of the swiftvet's claims. You can find the page at:
quote: "When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry." Larry Thurlow was NOT a crewmate of John Kerry's
Thurlow's Statements Do Not Fit With History - Says Navy is Lying?
On the day Kerry pulled Rassmann from the water, "Larry Thurlow had maneuvered his PCF-51 over by this time and he hopped aboard PCF-3 to offer assistance. The boat was in shambles but they were still shooting too hard to assess any damage" "BOATS RECEIVED HEAVY A/W [automatic weapons] & S/A [small arms] FROM BOTH BANKS…ALL BOATS AND MSF RETURNED FIRE…PCF-94 [Kerry's boat] PICKED UP MSF ADVISOR WHO WENT OVERBOARD…PCF-94 TOWED PCF-3." [Tour of Duty, Brinkley, 2004, p. 314; U.S. Navy After Action Report: http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/SpotReports_March1969.pdf]
Larry Thurlow Even Praised Kerry Despite Coming From Different Backgrounds: "John was sharp as a tack... But he came from a background most of us couldn't understand." [Tour of Duty, Brinkley, 2004 p. 300]
(There's a lot more about the other claims, but it's not my place to swamp this thread. I thought I'd post the "Thurlow" reference, since it seems to be current)
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I have said before that the Democrats' initial policy of ignoring and dismissing the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth would not work. Now they seem to realize that, and have changed tactics, going into a very strident, hysterical attack mode, decrying how the group is just smearing a true war hero, and saying the Bush Campaign is behind it because some people who contributed to the Bush Campaign also contributed money to enable SBVFT to be able to afford to put their ad on the airwaves. But they are not saying anything new, or anything of substance, just yelling louder.
In fact, on MSNBC this afternoon, I heard Clelland get so carried away he referred to Kerry still carrying shrapnel in his thigh from his purple heart injuries in Vietnam. (Is the rice still there, too?) Guess what, that can be checked with a simple X-Ray. Or even maybe the metal detector at an airport. If Kerry ever did get shrapnel deeply embedded in his thigh or butt, then what prevented it from being removed? It wouldn't take brain surgery, would it?
For a moment Democrats thought that Thurlow had been caught in a contradiction, quoting his citation for a bronze star that he received at the same time as Kerry's, where the citation account refers to hostile enemy fire from shore. But Thurlow has come right back with a public statement that he did not write that report or file any paperwork, the only person who filed any paperwork was Kerry, and so the statements in the citation were written by Kerry himself. When he learned he was receiving the bronze star several months later, Thurlow said he thought it was simply because he pulled men out of the water after they had been blown into the water when a mine blew up under their swift boat.
Compare that to all the different contradictory attempts by Kerry to explain away his lie about being in Cambodia on Christmas of 1968, ordered to be there by Nixon illegally. Not only has this account been contradicted by other crewmembers, it has been pointed out that Nixon had not taken office yet in December of 1968.
Compare that to the claim by Rassmann he was in the same boat with Kerry, and the claim by other Swift Boat commanders that Rassmann fell out of Kerry's boat when Kerry made a hard turn in his panic attempt to flee the scene, and to Kerry's own claim that Rassmann was in the boat behind him and was blown into the water by the mine.
I mean, come on, get real--who has more credibility and weight of evidence, more than 250 veterans, many of them decorated, who were in Kerry's unit--who all tell a consistent story, or the at most 14 men who keep contradicting each other that the Democratic Party has gotten to go around on display in support of Kerry's claim to be a war hero?
Then, of course, Democrats also try to shift attention to Bush's record of military service in the Air National Guard, as if Bush has ever made an issue of his military service being the basis for his candidacy like Kerry has.
I predict that the present efforts by Democrats and Kerry himself to shout down the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth will also fail, and lead many people to respond, "Me thinks thou protesteth too much." Such tactics just make Kerry look guiltier and guilter.
All that is left is for Kerry to release all of his military and medical records, which he has so far refused to do. All he has released so far is just a few selected records, mainly consisting of forms he himself filled out, and statements he himself wrote. But maybe Kerry cannot afford to allow the release of all the rest of his records. Maybe the proof that he has lied could be deduced all too easily from them.
Democrats were dumb, dumb, dumb to pick a man with such skeletons in his closet for a presidential candidate. Ted Kennedy had the good sense never to run for president after Chappaquidick, but that lesson was forgotten by those who chose Kerry to be the Democrats' standard-bearer.
SBVFT are not going to go away, ever. The first-hand, eye-witness testimony of 95% of those who served in Kerry's unit cannot be dismissed or shouted down.
The Bush campaign still could run that video clip of Kerry telling an interviewer on the air that he committed war atrocities in Vietnam, and ask, "If Kerry was telling the truth, then was he really a war hero? If he was not telling the truth, then why should we believe anything else he says, then or now?"
[ August 19, 2004, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Ron Lambert, you already know that Thurlow's claims have been contradicted by his own accounts recently, stemming from the release of data regarding the incident via the Freedom of Information Act, right? In other words, his book and the interviews he give now are a change of story from the reports given back then, when it happened.
Are you seriously trying to say that time has cleared his memory and given him the right version? Wouldn't that be contradictory to what 30 or more years does to everyone else?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I suggest you read his letter. He said that he did not write those words, the only person who filed any report that day was Kerry, and so the words used in the citation came from Kerry. Thurlow reaffirmed that there was no enemy fire. His veracity is also testified to by others.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
And it took them 30 years to come up with that defiance? How conveniently timed.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
quote: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."
(My other IE window stalle dtrying to load the PDF of Thurlows commendation. I've got to post this now, so that I can close IE)
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"I suggest you read his letter. He said that he did not write those words"
As senior officer, he either wrote them, or signed them: ie took full responsiblity for the wording. In accepting the decoration, he fully endorsed the words once again.
So Thurlow either lied to superior officers back then, or he is lying to the press now. Either way he is a doubly proven perjuror.
[ August 20, 2004, 08:26 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"suggest you read his letter. He said that he did not write those words, the only person who filed any report that day was Kerry, and so the words used in the citation came from Kerry."
Wrong! The award recomendation was written by George Elliott, the Award Citation by Admiral Zumwalt (well, probably zumwalt's staff).
Posted by HenryW (Member # 6053) on :
When one recieves a Bronze star there is a document detailing the courageous action. Most often there is a public presentation with the document being read aloud.
Mr. Thurlow's account of how he tought the medal was for something other than the proclamation of heroism is either dishonest or extraordinarily (read - unbelievably) niave. Either explanation makes his recollection of events suspect and to be placed on the discard pile.
Give the 250 folks thing a break - the vast majority are upset about the Veterans against the Vietnam war - a very legitimate 'I don't like this person because' situation. Few of the 250 are discrediting Kerry's record - so leave those folks out of the conversation...
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
[ August 20, 2004, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: BookWyrm ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Here is a statement from another eyewitness who corroborates Larry Thurlow's account of events, and indicates that Thurlow deserved his bronze star even though there was no enemy fire from shore:
quote:Statement by Navy Veteran Van Odell, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
in Rebuttal to Michael Dobbs, Washington Post, August 19, 2004
A courageous, soft spoken man of the Midwest, Larry Thurlow has a heart bigger than the great plains and a commitment to truth and honesty that is boundless. He is under attack, because John Kerry is feeling the heat of truth at the hands of this honest man and others like him.
The Kerry Campaign is attacking the truthfulness of this man and the Bronze Star he so richly deserves for his actions on March 13, 1969. I was there. I saw what happened.
The mine's detonation lifted PCF-3 completely out of the water just yards ahead of me. All boats commenced suppression fire in case enemy small arms fire ensued. None did.
All boats came to the aid of PCF-3, except one: John Kerry's boat. Kerry fled.
Larry Thurlow piloted his boat straight toward the mine-damaged PCF-3 from which thick, black smoke billowed. He jumped aboard and personally led damage control operations that saved the boat and rescue operations that saved the lives of badly wounded men. Larry's leadership was in the highest traditions of the naval service. His leadership allowed the other men and boats of the mission to exit the river safely. This single act of meritorious service -- the chief requirement of the Bronze Star -- should be honored, not ridiculed, by the Kerry campaign and its allies in the mainstream media.
To reiterate, only one enemy weapon was deployed that day -- the command-detonated submerged mine that disabled PCF-3. Larry Thurlow's citation contained references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire," because that was the language chosen by John Kerry who penned the spot report on the action that day. There was no "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" received that day. John Kerry's report was fiction -- a hoax on the entire chain of command. Larry Thurlow's heroism and meritorious service, however, is real.
To me Larry is one of the heroes of our country. He is a man who served his country when called and who returned home to be a productive citizen. Larry and men like him are the strong backbone of our society. I am proud to have served with him.
The above letter is posted on the swiftvets website, at http://www.swiftvets.com/ -- just scan down past Thurlow's letter.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Interestingly, Thurlow's war record was recently released, there is a discussion of it in yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle. Thurlow's war record contains direct contraditions to the statements he has made recently.
quote: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.
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.
So was Thurlow lying then or now. If he was lying then, why hasn't he volunteered to turn in his own Bronze Star.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rabbit, is it really asking too much for you to read Thurlow's rebuttal? And check the corroborating eye-witness testimony of Van Odell, which immediately follows Thurlow's letter on the swiftvets home page: Thurlow's rebuttal and corroboration from Odell
Unlike Kerry, who fled the scene, and then returned to help fish one man out of the water, Thurlow jumped into the stricken boat, directed damage control, saved the boat from sinking, and helped severely injured men. This was meritorious service worthy of a bronze star regardless of whether there was enemy fire.
Since those who wrote the citation only had one account to go on of what happened--Kerry's fraudulent account--that is how the false claim that there was enemy fire got into the report.
[ August 20, 2004, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Ron, Is it too much too ask for you to read Kerry's rebuttal and the statements made in the citations made to both men.
Thurlow's recent statements contradict the statements he made in his official wartime record. These weren't general statements -- they were his statements. Thurlow's claims that Kerry fled contradict those of others at the scene (including the man who Kerry's saved) and the all the official accounts of the event.
I suspect that when people are underfire, there is alot of confusion. In most disasters there are many contradicting reports of what happened. What's more, studies of memory have proven that peoples memories of an event change with time. Kerry made alot of these guys angry when he came out against the Vietnam War after his return. That alone has certainly colored their memory of his actions during the war. After having looked at the accusations, the war records, the citiation, that the rebuttals given by both sides. I have to conclude that Thurlow's recent statements are not credible.
Why do you conclude that they are?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rabbit, Kerry has not issued any rebuttal. Denial and calling names is not rebuttal.
The fact is, recent polls show that not only have 50% of all Americans seen the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth ads (despite the fact they only spent $500,000 to run them in three battleground states), but also the ads are having a significant impact on veterans, who were evenly split 46%-46% between Kerry and Bush after the Democratic National Convention, but now that the SBVFT ads have been running, veterans apparently have become aware of what the real issues are involving Kerry's past, and now there is a huge difference among veterans, with 55% supporting Bush, and only 37% supporting Kerry. This demographic by itself is probably what has driven the Democrats to such fevered desperation.
Democrats have tried to ignore and dismiss the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, and it did not work. Democrats have tried to shout them down and denounce them and call them names and decry them for "telling lies" about their candidate who is running as a "war hero." But that did not work either. The testimony of 95% of the veterans who served in Kerry's unit in Vietnam cannot be dismissed or shouted down or discredited. Now Democrats are trying to find some way to impose censorship on the SBVFT and force their ads to be banned from the airwaves.
I notice that Judicial Watch has just filed a formal request with the Navy and Department of Defense for official investigations of Kerry's service in Vietnam, particularly in the awarding of medals; and involving his antiwar activities after returning from Vietnam, such as his meetings with representatives of the North Vietnamese while still in the Naval Reserve where he came back parroting their ridiculous demand for "reparations."
Judicial Watch says it "was established in 1994 to serve as an ethical and legal 'watchdog' over our government, legal, and judicial systems to promote a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life." Judicial Watch also claims to be "a non-partisan, non-profit foundation...to...root out corruption in our government and to make sure offenders are brought to justice."
"veterans apparently have become aware of what the real issues are involving Kerry's past,"
To be fair, you should phrase this as "have become aware of what some people say the real issues are..." Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
::shakes head::
Two different posts have now linked to the same content I linked to days ago . . .
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Chicago Tribune editor speaks up in support of Kerry's war record and writes that criticism of Kerry "impugns others who are not in the public eye."
quote:William Rood, an editor at the Chicago Tribune, writes in Sunday's editions: "Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the accounts of what happened [in 1969] were overblown. The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us."
Like Kerry, Rood was a lieutenant junior grade and skipper of one of the three boats ambushed twice while on patrol February 28, 1969. Kerry was awarded the Silver Star, the Navy's third-highest combat decoration, for his aggressive response to the ambushes.
Rood won a Bronze Star for his actions in the same clash, and writes that criticism of Kerry " impugns others who are not in the public eye."
He says, "It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there."
***
O'Neill's book said Kerry shot a fleeing Vietnamese teenager to win the award.
Rood disputes that, saying he checked with another sailor on that mission and they agreed that "he was a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the [Viet Cong] usually wore."
And more untruths from the Bush campaign: <edited to add: this is actually an ad from the swiftvets, which, as Dag pointed out, has not been proven to be linked directly to the Bush campaign. I apologize for saying this is from the Bush campaign. I believe all of this is from Bush, but I have no proof and should not have written such a misleading sentence.>
quote:The latest ad, a 30-second spot released Friday, uses segments from Kerry's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971. In the ad, Kerry says, "They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads," "randomly shot at civilians," and "razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Kahn."
The ad does not include Kerry's preface, in which he said he is reporting what others said at a Vietnam veterans conference. Instead, a swift boat group member refers to the statements as "accusations" Kerry made against Vietnam veterans.
Doesn't this show a close link between the Bush campaign and the swiftboat vets?
quote:A volunteer adviser has quit President Bush's re-election campaign after appearing in a veterans group's television commercial blasting Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's involvement in the Vietnam-era antiwar movement.
A Bush campaign statement said it did not know that retired Air Force Col. Ken Cordier had appeared in an ad by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The Kerry campaign has accused the group of illegally working with the Bush campaign.
[ August 23, 2004, 07:35 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, it doesn't. Trust me, if they were coordinating the guy wouldn't have shown up in the commercials, or he would have already quit the Bush campaign.
And the ad you mention with Kerrey's testimony is from swiftvets, not the Bush campaign, right?
Dagonee
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I disagree, it does to me, and to may others.
I don't know that Bush's campaign is closly related to the SwiftVets now, but I believe that his campaign started the ball rolling, or he would have spoken out against it by now.
Getting someone to do your dirty work has a long history within politics....and not just in this country, or just for Republicans.
Kwea
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So you just think this masterful team of political subterfuge forgot that they were employing someone in the ad, and didn't think this would be noticed?
Dagonee
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Beren, if you think Rood' story is so super-credible, then explain why he says Kerry dove into the water to rescue Rassmann, when everyone else--including Kerry--says he just reached down into the water to pull up Rassmann. So how reliable does that make Rood's testimony, really?
There were many crewmembers on the scene who witnessed what happened besides the commanders of the swift boats, and the majority tell a consistent story that there was no enemy fire from shore, and that Kerry fled the scene at first, and did not return until it was clear there was no return fire to the other swift boats' initial suppression fire.
And there are other commanders of swift boats who were present to witness Kerry's behavior on other occasions, on other joint missions. 16 of the 19 still alive are members of SBVFT. Two have declined to make a public statement. Only one has come out in favor of Kerry--Rood. Naturally, Kerry supporters desperate to grasp at straws wish to annoint Rood as their hero, and demand that only he be listened to.
The online Detroit News is running an informal poll which so far indicates that 50.5% of respondents believe Kerry's version of the truth about his service record, and 49.5% of respondents believe the version of the truth about Kerry's service record being stated by Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. The Detroit News serves the largest market in Michigan, a key battleground state, so here is yet another indication of how big a problem the SBVFT testimony is being to the Kerry campaign.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sorry, it appears that I confused Rood with Langhofer. There are so many witnesses and different incidents being discussed in this debate, it can be confusing.
But here is this news item about Rood being contradicted by another crewmate who was aboard Kerry's own boat:
quote: But unmentioned in coverage of Rood's story so far is one salient fact: His account is sharply contradicted by one of Kerry's own crewmates, who complained eight years ago that Kerry took credit for bravery he didn't deserve – in an action that earned him the Silver Star. .... Unmentioned by Rood in his Chicago Tribune report is the account of Tom Bellodeau, who, unlike Rood, was actually aboard Kerry's boat when the VC in question leveled his grenade launcher at them.
"You know, I shot that guy," Bellodeau told the Boston Globe during a 1996 interview, correcting an earlier Globe report that echoed Kerry's claim that he alone had neutralized the enemy ambusher.
"He jumped up, he looked right at me, I looked at him," Bellodeau continued. "You could tell he was trying to decide whether to shoot or not. I expected the guy on Kerry's boat with the twin 50s to blast him, but he couldn't depress the guns far enough. We were up on the bank."
Only after the enemy soldier was wounded, said Bellodeau, did Kerry leap from the boat onto the beach and pursue him around the back of a nearby hut, where the would-be president finished him off.
Bellodeau is dead now. According to the article, Kerry spoke at his funeral, and still did not mention the role Bellodeau played in shooting the VC who had the RPG launcher first before Kerry jumped out of the boat and chased him.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Because it didn't happen, Ron.
quote: So you just think this masterful team of political subterfuge forgot that they were employing someone in the ad, and didn't think this would be noticed?
Dagonee
No, but I do think they were involved in the startup of SBV, and haven't come clean on if they approve of the ads.
Ron, MI doen't matter, really, even though I am fond of it. Kerry can win without it, easily.
You keep claiming all these numbers of Vets who claim to have seen Kerry so various thing, but none of them can get their story right too. Why is it that you are more likely to believe people who were never near the boat in the first place, and who have been liying for yearsd about their own medals and honors, but when the same thing happens to Kerry supporters you attempt to pounce on their inconsistancies?
Could it be that you are against Kerry and the Democratic ticket?
I never would have guessed...
Kwea
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
BTW, the only person who saw Bellieau hit him was......himself.
But he is in the switvet ad, so he MUST be an honest and trustworth guy.
He's dead, so he couldn't have lied...
And Rood DOES say, despite the claims otherwise, that the guy might have been wounded. The man who "claimed" to have shot the guy to wound him was on another boat...so how would Kerry have know what had happened?
And there is no one who was able to say if the enemy was woulded or not.
But eveyone agrees that Kerry chased him down alone.
At least a brick wall has a chance of falling down....
Kwea
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
You know, when either side makes a claim in favor of themselves, or a claim to criticize their opponents, it's worth checking out.
But the Republicans have proven themselves to be a bunch of lying bastards, though.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Might I point out the obvious? That Kerry served in Vietnam, Bush didn't. They (The Republicans) need to drop that issue and focus on something more important.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And the "not-connected-to-Kerrey" anti-Bush crowd hasn't, ssywak?
[ August 22, 2004, 10:34 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There're certainly plenty of liars who criticize bush, however I think that most of the really prominent groups which criticize him have been on the whole rather honest. Unless you'd care to cite some counterexamples . . .?
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Dag, thanks for not taking me to task for my mistake. It was a bad one and I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt that it was an honest one.
quote:Bellodeau is dead now. According to the article, Kerry spoke at his funeral, and still did not mention the role Bellodeau played in shooting the VC who had the RPG launcher first before Kerry jumped out of the boat and chased him.
But Bellodeau also said:
quote:"This man was not lying on the ground. This man was more than capable of destroying that boat and everybody on it. Senator Kerry did not give him that opportunity," Belodeau said. He also said that he was not sure whether or not he had hit the attacker.Source: National Review
You do make a great point about SBVFT testimony being a huge problem for Kerry's campaign. This is the most active Kerry thread on Hatrack, and it is not about Iraq or the economy.
This is a perfect win-win for Bush. Kerry cannot ignore this attack since he is running on the war hero ticket; but even if Kerry win this debate Bush can just throw up his hands and say, "That's nice, I, for one, never questioned your war record."
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Here is the latest result of the on-going Detroit News online poll:
quote: Whose version of the truth about John Kerry's service in Vietnam do you tend to believe?
John Kerry's 49.90%
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's 50.10%
Yesterday, it was 50.5 in favor of Kerry's version vs. 49.5% in favor of SBVFT's version. It is now even closer to even, but slightly in favor of SBVFT's version. Looks like SBVFT is still winning more and more people to its view, as more and more people see the ads.
The online Detroit News serves the largest market in Michigan, which is one of the three largest battleground states.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
So what? 70% believed Cheney's repeated lies that Saddam was directly involved with AlQaeda and 9/11 . Lessee, when Limbaugh fed ya the words, weren't you the one whining about Clinton basing his actions on polls??? Shift to the present and surprise, surprise, surprise cuz Limbaugh's feeding you the words, you suddenly want Kerry to act based on polls.
So who do you trust? Dubya, or Thurlow and his gang of previously self-proven liars.
[ August 23, 2004, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Actually, I have never listened to a single broadcast of Limbaugh's in my life.
And I think that the one who is a "self-proven liar" is Kerry, over and over.
God bless the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth! By mounting their determined and courageous challenge against Kerry, they are provoking him to reveal his true colors, as he personally orders his campaign lawyers (against the advice of his own staff) to write threatening letters to TV station managers if they run the SBVFT ads, and even to the publishers of John O'Neill's book, Unfit For Command demanding that they stop printing the book.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Hrm.
So far, Kerry hasn't been exposed as having lied a SINGLE TIME!
All the people who actually saw the action in question in the AD, back Kerry's story.
The official navy records, back Kerry's story.
The people who are "courageously" mounting a smear campaign against kerry? Most of them decided sometime between 1996 and now that Kerry is scum, when prior to that time, they spoke, publicly, highly of Kerry.
Kerry MAY be mistaken about where he was on christmas eve in 1968, but being mistaken about where you are, is not lying. In order to prove that he lied in 1986, you need to show that his MEMORY of being in cambodia in 1968 is wrong. Showing that he wasn't actually there in no way establishes that he was lying, it only establishes that his memory is wrong... and so far, no one has actually shown that he wasn't in cambodia in 1968. Since the people with access to the charts on his boat, say they were "on or near" the cambodian border, its very possible he WAS in cambodia.
Kerry's lied?
Show me ONE lie. You can't. You can show where the SBVFT SAY Kerry has lied, but to then claim that Kerry has lied is deceitful, since that claim rests on having knowledge about Kerry's memories, and believing unsubstantiated accounts over documented accounts, when the documented accounts are made by people who have not changed their story within the last 8 years, and were made closer to the time of action.
An interesting side bar to this: Claiming Kerry is a liar, means that the Right is willing to play by the rules where Bush is a DOCUMENTED liar. He has made claims that do not conform to reality. Kerry has made claims that MAY not conform to reality. Therefore, Bush is a bigger liar then Kerry, by the criteria established by the Right for claiming a president or presidential candidate is lying.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
whoop dee do, RonLambert. So ya listen to Limbaugh imitators on ClearChannel, Fox, etc instead.
ooo... The KerryCampaign is doin' the same thing as the BushCampaign has long been doing to MoveOn. Mean nasty little Democrats, imagine adapting Republican tactics. tut tut tut
Course'n the Democrats have a proven link, Ken Cordier between the so-called independent SwiftBoaters and the BushCampaign: which is illegal under campaign laws. And the Republicans use nothing but lies (and the threat of the Republican-controlled FederalCommunicationsCommission) in their attempt to prevent broadcast stations from airing MoveOn's advertisements.
But that's okay. After all, Republicans are s'poseta lie about everything. Only Democrats hafta be so honest that even liars can't rearrange their words.
[ August 24, 2004, 02:21 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Actually, I have never listened to a single broadcast of Limbaugh's in my life."
Ron, in a previous exchange regarding whether you believed Rush Limbaugh to be rude or not, I recall that you mentioned that you had never heard a show in which he was, and had personally seen the show in which the infamous "Chelsea: White House dog" slur made it on the air. I'm assuming that watching Limbaugh's broadcast and listening to his broadcast are two different things?
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Dag,
quote:And the "not-connected-to-Kerrey" anti-Bush crowd hasn't, ssywak?
No, in fact they haven't. Please feel free to show me some of these lies. Or is innuendo enough?
Here's a lie for you:
GWB: "We are not into 'Nation Building'"
Response: (See "Iraq")
Oh, maybe that's not a lie. Maybe it's just FLIP-FLOPPING. $100 BILLION FLIP-FLOPPING.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, thanks for not taking me to task for my mistake. It was a bad one and I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt that it was an honest one.
You’ve never given me any reason to doubt your good intentions, even if you are voting for Kerrey.
quote: So what? 70% believed Cheney's repeated lies that Saddam was directly involved with AlQaeda and 9/11.
FOR THE LAST FREAKIN’ TIME, CHENEY NEVER SAID IRAQ WAS INVOLVED IN 9/11. Show the attributed quote or please sing a different tune.
quote: No, in fact they haven't. Please feel free to show me some of these lies. Or is innuendo enough?
I give you Michael Moore. ‘Nuff said.
Dagonee
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Well Dag, I'm leaning towards Kerry, but it is more of an anti-Bush than a pro-Kerry vote. In other words, I can still be persuaded.
Bush has handled this whole thing beautifully. He condmned the ads today and I think most swing voters would not blame Bush for the Swiftvet commercials:
quote: Bush criticized the groups' first commercial and all other outside group attack ads - many of which have targeted his own re-election.
"That means that ad, every other ad," he said. "I can't be more plain about it. And I wish - I hope my opponent joins me in saying - condemning these activities of the 527s. It's - I think they're bad for the system. That's why I signed the bill, McCain-Feingold."
Bush's comment about 527s was a reference to independent groups that raise money in unlimited amounts. The so-called McCain-Feingold bill, a campaign finance overhaul bill which Bush signed reluctantly earlier in his term, banned the political parties from raising such funds.
While Kerry and Democrats have demanded that Bush condemn the attack on his war record, the president has been targeted by an estimated $60 million in commercials by outside groups since the campaign began.
Kerry has declined to call for an end to those ads, which helped him at a time when he did not have the funds to compete with Bush' campaign advertising budget. Source: AP News
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Moore campaigned against the Democrats and the Democratic presidential candidate in the 2000Election. He campaigned for and voted for Nader; and has taken his measure of responsiblity for ensuring Dubya's victory. Moore is an entertainer: ie one whose function is to amuse his audience, and to get people talking about his product. Moore admits to being a propagandist: ie one who presents facts&arguments which bolster his case, while failing to mention the facts&arguments against. Kinda like a lawyer; except he doesn't pretend to be unbiased. Moore still doesn't twist half-truths into the outright lies which are oh-so-typically spread by neo"conservative"Republicans.
[ August 24, 2004, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Wow, I can't wait to hear Richards spin on this...
Let me guess, Bush has it all wrong... Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
What Dubya fails to mention
quote:Still, Bush has an advantage... ...although both candidates are expected to accept $75 million in public funding for the general election, Bush has the upper hand...Public money kicks in as soon as candidates accept the nomination. After that, they can't raise or spend private funds. Kerry's problem is that the clock starts on July 29 -- five weeks before the GOP convention. So Kerry has five fewer weeks in which to raise private money and must stretch his $75 million over 13 weeks, vs. Bush's 8 weeks, until Election Day on Nov. 2.
So for the past month Dubya has been campaigning on private contributions, while Kerry has been spending the limited Federal matching funds after turning over the balance of his private campaign money. By the time the RepublicanConvention is over, Kerry will probably have less than $50million to spend while Dubya will have $75million to spend until the election. That's a 3to2 monetary advantage for Dubya IF Dubya decides to accept matching funds
If not, Dubya can continue spending the ~$70million which will be sitting in his campaign fund after the RepublicanConvention, and continue raising more money until the 2004Election. It can then be expected that Dubya will have well over ~$100million vs Kerry's ~$50million: ie at least a 2to1 spending advantage for Dubya, and against Kerry. If contributions to the BushCampaign are at the same average rate as in previous months, it'll be an even greater 12to5 advantage in favor of Bush.
Plus Dubya gets taxpayer-subsidized at a rate of ~$20thousand per hour for flying himself and his campaign staff and reporters around in AirForceOne during the campaign, while Cheney and his bunch will be taxpayer-subsidised at a rate of over $10thousand per hour while flying AirForceTwo. Kerry has to pay for his own and Edwards' transportation as well as for his and Edwards' campaign staff and reporters out of his campaign funds.
I can certainly see why Dubya would wanna cut out the 527 campaigns. Especially before Dubya even has to announce his intentions inregards to giving up private money and accepting federal matching funds.
Besides if Republicans continue with their 527s after Dubya's request that they cease (wink wink), the attitude will be "What can a Republican President of the UnitedStates do about it?" While candidate Kerry will be hammered if antiBush 527s break the "truce" in response.
[ August 24, 2004, 02:57 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by enjeeo (Member # 2336) on :
quote: I refused to go see Fahrenheit 9/11 because I felt that it would not be any more than misleading information...
More misleading than the media reports you're getting now?
You honestly never considered the possibility that it might be more truthful than misleading? You just refused to even hear what it had to say, and prejudged the creator's integrity? Have you had reason to mistrust this man in the past? Is there any basis to your immediate mistrust?
I know we've certainly been given reason to mistrust the subject of his film.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As for Cheney's propensity toward lying, your statement has been rebutted and your question has been answered many times.
No, it hasn't. Basically, none of those posts show anything except that the Bush administration changed their view of how dangerous Iraq was based on 9/11, not because they participated but because it became brutally clear that Al Queda is interested in killing thousands at a time.
To repeat: No one has EVER shown me a quote that has an administration official saying Hussein helped Al Queda with 9/11.
Dagonee
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Excellent breakdown, aspectre. Calling for an end to all 527 ads instead of merely demonstrable hatchet jobs would hurt Kerry a great deal more than Bush.
-o-
quote:Have you had reason to mistrust this man in the past? Is there any basis to your immediate mistrust?
Um, the numerous demonstrated untruths and distortions in Bowling for Columbine, maybe? The fact that similar issues are begining to be documented for this film? I'm voting against Bush, but goodness, how can you imply that Moore is any kind of paragon of honesty?
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Dag,
Now I have. From the Washington Post, June 17, 2004:
quote:In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that Sept. 11 mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official before the attacks, in April 2000 in Prague; Cheney later said the meeting could not be proved or disproved.
Bush, in his speech aboard an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003, asserted: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding."
In September, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press": "If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
Quick question: How many LIVES have George W. Bush's LIES cost us? Versus, let's say, Michael Moore's (alleged) lies, Bill Clinton's lies ("I did not have sex with that woman"), and John Kerry's (alleged) lies?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Someone in a different forum who was a Lt. Col. in the military, offered this assessment of Kerry's action for which he was awarded a silver star:
quote:Did any of you here previously hold a commission as an officer in the military, particularly in the Navy? Are you aware of the circumstances of Sen Kerry's Silver Star?
It regarded his beaching of his swift boat, and jumping off to chase down a wounded Viet Cong, shooting him behind a hut (out of sight of his crew). His Silver Star citation discussed his "heroism" in that regard.
There are some problem in that regard, however:
1. A Naval officer is NEVER supposed to leave his command, his boat, and his men. Kerry admits jumping off and chasing an enemy, going out of sight of his crew, and then coming back. Naval regulations actually should have given him a reprimand, if not relieving him of command, rather than an award. Correct procedure would have been for him to order a couple of his men to chase the guy down, if he thought the danger to his boat or the mission was so great that the killing of that guy was imperative. If I had been his commanding officer, I would have relieved him. (I was a Lt Col in the military).
2. Killing a wounded combatant is a war crime. Kerry claimed that "all" the people in his unit committed war crimes, but the only one we have actual evidence of is Kerry himself.
3. It is also a given in the Navy that one doesn't beach one's boat, except in rare and defined circumstances. And to beach one's boat while under fire, as Kerry claims, is dereliction of duty. Think about it: these small boats had a couple of weapons and not much armor. [Their hulls were made of aluminum.] Their chief defense was their speed and mobility. If one beaches one's boat, you remove all that and make it a sitting duck. Kerry's men are lucky that they all didn't DIE because of his stunt. Instead of making his boat safer, it made his boat in much greater danger, and unnecessarily so.
This is a Silver Star that should never have been given, as far as I am concerned. I put it right up there with the Silver Star that Lyndon Johnson got for riding 13 minutes in a reconaissance plane during WW2. What he [Kerry] did was not "heroic" - it was stupid, dangerous, and placed his ENTIRE COMMAND in unnecessary jeopardy. It is not evidence that he is fit to be Commander-in-Chief - rather it is evidence of BAD command decisions.
Jack Chaffin
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tom, I think you must have me confused with the other Ron. I don't recall saying anything about Limbaugh and the "'Chelsea white house dog' slur." I don't know if Limbaugh is rude or not. I have never listened to a single one of his broadcasts. The only radio I listen to is WWJ-all news radio in Detroit. Sometimes I listen to WJBK to listen to a Tigers game. Or I switch to FM radio to listen to classical music on the Canadian station. That's it. Aside from WWJ, I get my news from cable TV news and from the Internet.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Ron, I believe an argument could be made that Kerry made the wrong choice. If his gambit wasn't successful, I'm sure it would have ended in a court martial instead of a Silver Star.
quote: Another member of the crew confirmed Kerry's account for the Boston Globe and expressed no doubt that Kerry's action had saved both the boat and its crew:
The crewman with the best view of the action was Frederic Short, the man in the tub operating the twin guns. Short had not talked to Kerry for 34 years, until after he was recently contacted by a Globe reporter. Kerry said he had "totally forgotten" Short was on board that day.
Short had joined Kerry's crew just two weeks earlier, as a last-minute replacement, and he was as green as the Arkansas grass of his home. He said he didn't realize that he should have carried an M-16 rifle, figuring the tub's machine guns would be enough. But as Kerry stood face to face with the guerrilla carrying the rocket, Short realized his predicament. With the boat beached and the bow tilted up, a guard rail prevented him from taking aim at the enemy. For a terrifying moment, the guerrilla looked straight at Short with the rocket.
Short believes the guerrilla didn't fire because he was too close and needed to be a suitable distance to hit the boat squarely and avoid ricochet debris. Short tried to protect his skipper.
"I laid in fire with the twin .50s, and he got behind a hootch," recalled Short. "I laid 50 rounds in there, and Mr. Kerry went in. Rounds were coming everywhere. We were getting fire from both sides of the river. It was a canal. We were receiving fire from the opposite bank, also, and there was no way I could bring my guns to bear on that."
Short said there is "no doubt" that Kerry saved the boat and crew. "That was a him-or-us thing, that was a loaded weapon with a shape charge on it . . . It could pierce a tank. I wouldn't have been here talking to you. I probably prayed more up that creek than a Southern Baptist church does in a month."
Charles Gibson, who served on Kerry's boat that day because he was on a one-week indoctrination course, said Kerry's action was dangerous but necessary. "Every day you wake up and say, 'How the hell did we get out of that alive?'" Gibson said. "Kerry was a good leader. He knew what he was doing." Although Kerry's superiors were somewhat concerned about the issue of his leaving his boat unattended, they nonetheless found his actions courageous and worthy of commendation:
When Kerry returned to his base, his commanding officer, George Elliott, raised an issue with Kerry: the fine line between whether the action merited a medal or a court-martial.
"When [Kerry] came back from the well-publicized action where he beached his boat in middle of ambush and chased a VC around a hootch and ended his life, when [Kerry] came back and I heard his debrief, I said, 'John, I don't know whether you should be court-martialed or given a medal, court-martialed for leaving your ship, your post,'" Elliott recalled in an interview.
"But I ended up writing it up for a Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second thoughts at all about that," Elliott said. A Silver Star, which the Navy said is its fifth-highest medal, commends distinctive gallantry in action.
Asked why he had raised the issue of a court-martial, Elliott said he did so "half tongue-in-cheek, because there was never any question I wanted him to realize I didn't want him to leave his boat unattended. That was in context of big-ship Navy — my background. A C.O. [commanding officer] never leaves his ship in battle or anything else. I realize this, first of all, it was pretty courageous to turn into an ambush even though you usually find no more than two or three people there. On the other hand, on an operation some time later, down on the very tip of the peninsula, we had lost one boat and several men in a big operation, and they were hit by a lot more than two or three people."
Elliott stressed that he never questioned Kerry's decision to kill the Viet Cong, and he appeared in Boston at Kerry's side during the 1996 Senate race to back up that aspect of Kerry's action.
"I don't think they were exactly ready to court-martial him," said Wade Sanders, who commanded a swift boat that sometimes accompanied Kerry's vessel, and who later became deputy assistant secretary of the Navy. "I can only say from the certainty borne of experience that there must have been some rumbling about, 'What are we going to do with this guy, he turned his boat,' and I can hear the words, 'He endangered his crew.' But from our position, the tactic to take is whatever action is best designed to eliminate the enemy threat, which is what he did."
Indeed, the Silver Star citation makes clear that Kerry's performance on that day was both extraordinary and risky. "With utter disregard for his own safety and the enemy rockets," the citation says, Kerry "again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only 10 feet from the Viet Cong rocket position and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy . . . The extraordinary daring and personal courage of Lt. Kerry in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire were responsible for the highly successful mission."
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Considering that Lt.Colonel ain't a USNavy rank, his comment might as well have come from ChuckyCheese.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Man, you should've said colonel sanders! Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Considering that Lt.Colonel ain't a USNavy rank, his comment might as well have come from ChuckyCheese.
A. He didn't claim it was a Navy rank. B. Many people in services with Lt. Colonel as a rank know a lot about small-boat tactics. You know, like the Marines? C. Assuming the guy actually was a Lt. Colonel, his opinion is certainly more informed than yours on this subject. D. The ad is still stupid.
Dagonee
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:2. Killing a wounded combatant is a war crime.
Um, even if he's armed and shooting at you? This statement seems clearly incomplete, at best.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Speaking of hatchet jobs:
quote: 2. Killing a wounded combatant is a war crime. Kerry claimed that "all" the people in his unit committed war crimes, but the only one we have actual evidence of is Kerry himself.
Crime? Are you insane? Unarmed, maybe, but armed and dangerous, weather wonded or not is so much a crime that he got a medal for it.
Make up your mind...either he deserved his medal, or he didn't...you can't have it both ways. Right now it sounds like you are saying that he was never under fire so he didn't deserve it-and that he killed someone who was shooting (or still able to shoot) at him and belongs in jail. Which is it? If there was no shooting, how did he kill someone in a firefight that never happened?
If the service record is what matters to you, condider this...we have documentation that Bush was AWOL, and that he was cited for no shows to his unit. In all the units I am aware of he should have been arrested and court-marshalled for deriliction of duty.
And don't say it doesn't happen, because it almost happened to me...until I could prove that the train was 4 hours late....Hours, not months or years...hours!
You have NO experience in the service, and all the quotes (or over 90%) you have "quoted" are usless. It is a hack job, and so far almost all your quotes have come straight off the SWVT site, which is like allowing Moore to give the keynote speach at the Republican Convention...
Do some research...every single thing I have found has taken less that an hour to find, and most of my sources are from fairly neutral sites, except where I qouted Kerry's campaign....and as he is the one you keep accusing of war crimes that happened in a non-existant conflict.
Kwea
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I personally agree with Bill O'Reilly that really the military records of Kerry OR Bush should not be relevant right now. I don't care what they did 20+ years ago, so much.
I would rather see a lot more talk and interaction about current issues. The media, and both parties, have let this military thing become forefront. I wish it would stop.
Farmgirl
[ August 24, 2004, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by Turgan (Member # 6697) on :
heh heh heh heh heh... I like O'reilly... I like Rush too. ESPECIALLY the day when rush spent the whole program taking sound bytes of Kerry. Kerry would contradict himself SOOO much. It was funny. like: "I AM FOR ABORTION!" Next sound byte: "I AM SOLIDLY AGAINST ABORTION!" It was loads of laughter for me and my fiance.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that Sept. 11 mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official before the attacks, in April 2000 in Prague; Cheney later said the meeting could not be proved or disproved.
This is the one that seems particularly damning to me, but I want to see the original quotation to see if Cheney said “before the attacks.” If not, then the juxtaposition of the two is the Post’s, not Cheney’s.
Bush, in his speech aboard an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003, asserted: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding."
Neither “ally of al Qaeda” nor “source of terrorist funding” speaks to 9/11, and at leas the second is demonstrably true.
In September, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press": "If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
I want to see the rest of this one, too. By September, we already knew Sadaam was out of power and not coming back, so this can’t just be referring to removing Sadaam. I’d be interested to see if the rest of this interview speaks about the importance of an Islamic democracy in combating terrorism.
Edit: And only the first statement could have been used to garner support to go to war, since the rest happened afterwards.
Dagonee
[ August 24, 2004, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:heh heh heh heh heh... I like O'reilly... I like Rush too. ESPECIALLY the day when rush spent the whole program taking sound bytes of Kerry. Kerry would contradict himself SOOO much. It was funny. like: "I AM FOR ABORTION!" Next sound byte: "I AM SOLIDLY AGAINST ABORTION!" It was loads of laughter for me and my fiance.
There's not a person alive who, if taped as much as Kerrey has been, would not generate enough contradictory statements to fill a radio show. It's all in the editing.
Dagonee
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
enjeeo!
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Beren, notice that the Boston Globe article also states that the gunner on Kerry's boat could not depress the 50 calibre machine gun far enough to target the VC holding the Rocket-propelled grenade launcher, because Kerry had beached the boat. Had Kerry not beached the boat, the gunner could have taken out the VC with the RPG easily, with no "heroics" needed. And the boat, still being in the water and mobile, would have been a harder target to hit.
And notice that there was said to be other enemy fire, coming from both banks. And Kerry beached the boat, making it a sitting duck.
How many think this was really a smart command decision?
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Although I can kick some serious ass in Starcraft, I don't think that qualifies me to second guess Kerry's command decision.
Did Kerry make a bad call? I don't know. I believe you can make a case for either side of the argument. What I do know is that:
1. After careful consideration, his commanding officer decided he deserved the Silver Star:
"But I ended up writing it up for a Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second thoughts at all about that."
2. Kerry's crewmate said there is "no doubt" that Kerry saved the boat and crew.
I believe those two individuals are far more qualitified to judge the situation than me.
Kerry made the tough choices and backed it up with his life. I admire that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If anyone's interested, unfit co-author John E. O'Neill is on live at the Post:
There's a link on that same page to a discussion scheduled for 2 with John Hurley, National Director of Veterans for Kerry.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
While many are demanding that Kerry release the additional hundred or so pages of his military records that he has not yet released, even those records he has released, and that you can read on his own website, are raising questions.
For example, there are two different citations written for Kerry's silver star (and a third one is known to exist), and two for his bronze star, a situation that is said to be bizarre by people knowledgeable in military procedures. Not only that, but Kerry's Silver Star is said to include a combat V. According to a U.S. Navy spokesman, "Kerry's record is incorrect. The Navy has never issued a 'combat V' to anyone for a Silver Star." Naval regulations do not allow for the use of a "combat V" for the Silver Star. One investigator of fraudulent claims has said that the only records he has seen where a combat V was said to be issued with a silver star, were fraudulent.
Second, someone filed a form DD215 to amend his original form DD214, and the amending form is dated March, 2001. Why is this record being amended 30 years later? What this form amended was the number of campaign stars attached to his Vietnam Service Medal.
Third, why did Kerry get four campaign stars attached to his Vietnam Service Medal, when he was only there in Vietnam for two campaigns?
Fourth, and what strikes me as most curious, is the fact that Kerry was required to serve in the Naval Reserves for a time after returning from Vietnam, and should have been discharged from the Naval Reserves in 1972. But documents on Kerry's own website show that he did not get his discharge from the Naval Reserves until 1978. Why the six-year delay?
Could it be that during his participation in the antiwar protest movements during those years, he refused to show up for his Naval Reserve appointments? Was he AWOL, a deserter? One wonders who might have pulled strings to get him an "honorable" discharge six years late?
It would certainly be ironic if after all the attempts made by Democrats to hurl unsupported accusations at Bush that he was AWOL and a deserter from the Natonal Guard, it turns out that the charges of being AWOL and a deserter actually come back and stick to Kerry for real!
[ August 29, 2004, 01:34 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: Could it be that during his participation in the antiwar protest movements during those years, he refused to show up for his Naval Reserve appointments? Was he AWOL, a deserter? One wonders who might have pulled strings to get him an "honorable" discharge six years late?
Get real. There is only one person running for President that has an attendance problem, and it isn't Kerry.
Find proof before you make these allegations...and I don't mean made up stuff from the SwiftVet website.
Or even better, take it from there...it will be as easy to disprove as the rest of their allegations.
BTW, How do you have any idea of how may documents Kerry hasn't released? If he hasn't released them.....
For the last time, he has released his records, barring medical records.
Should Bush have to release his achohol rehabilitation papers, or his substance abuse treatment records?
No.
They are confidential medical records...like Kerry's are too.
The only difference is that Kerry actually has some records to release, while most of Bush's records are AWOL...as he himself was all too often.
And yes...there is actually proof of that.
Look it up...it's in the posts/links I made earlier..
quote: For example, there are three different citations written for Kerry's silver star, and two for his bronze star, a situation that is said to be bizarre and unprecedented by people knowledgeable in military procedures
Which people? What is so unusual about that? Once again, try quoting someone neutral, or at least not as obviously biasised as the SwiftVets....
Are you sure you didn't write for the SwiftVets? Your lack of documentation skills and penchant for completely unfounded and erronous allegations seems strangly familier to anyone who has bothered to read any of the fiction the SwiftVets have written to date....
Kwea
[ August 29, 2004, 01:41 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
All the statements I made have been documented repeatedly. But since you cavile at such great length, Kwea, here are a few documented statements that should cause pause for thought:
quote:Former Navy Secretary John Lehman has no idea where a Silver Star citation displayed on Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's campaign Web site came from, he said Friday. The citation appears over Lehman's signature.
"It is a total mystery to me. I never saw it. I never signed it. I never approved it. And the additional language it contains was not written by me," he said.
The additional language varied from the two previous citations, signed first by Adm. Elmo Zumwalt and then Adm. John Hyland, which themselves differ. The new material added in the Lehman citation reads in part: "By his brave actions, bold initiative, and unwavering devotion to duty, Lieutenant (jg) Kerry reflected great credit upon himself...."
As for the hundred pages of unreleased Kerry military records, that was established by the Washington Post:
quote:Although Kerry campaign officials insist that they have published Kerry's full military records on their Web site (with the exception of medical records shown briefly to reporters earlier this year), they have not permitted independent access to his original Navy records. A Freedom of Information Act request by The Post for Kerry's records produced six pages of information. A spokesman for the Navy Personnel Command, Mike McClellan, said he was not authorized to release the full file, which consists of at least a hundred pages.
The only information I have gotten from the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth is their personal testimony--which is very weighty coming from 254 veterans, 60 of whom are decorated, many of whom knew Kerry longer than any of the men on Kerry's own boat (for example, Jim Rassmann was only on Kerry's boat for two days), and most of whom were in the same Swift Boat group as Kerry, and some of whom were Kerry's commanding officers.
Much of the information I gave, which I assume people know, comes from Kerry's own website. Such as the date of his return from Vietnam, and the date of his final discharge from the Naval Reserves six years later, and the reproductions of form DD215 (dated March, 2001) which amends form DD214 and adds two more campaign stars to Kerry's Vietnam Service medal (making a total of four). Which I said was where the information came from.
[ August 29, 2004, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
WEll, I have seen many, many vetrans records, from inprocessing to discharge, and most people when they speak of records they speak of the records held by Admin.
Those records are what are called "service records", and they don't include medical files, or every single peice of paper that has Kerry's (or whomevers) name on it.
If you want someones service records, and request them, that is what you get. I should know, as I spent 3 years working jointly in the Admin nd Saftey offices for USAMRIID, one of the top medical reserch facilities in the world, second to only the CDC here in the USA>
There are plenty of files around that aren't considered part of the service records, and as such are not included in service records requests. For anyone, not just for Kerry.
As for you being non-partisan and impartial, hee is yet another example of your "editing" skills (when they suit you), from the last paragraph of the very article you posted fromthe Chicago Sun-Times...oddly enough, the ONLY paragraph you didn't quote here...
quote: Asked how the citation could have been executed over his signature without his knowledge, Lehman said: "I have no idea. I can only imagine they were signed by an autopen." The autopen is a device often used in the routine execution of executive documents in government.
In other words, it was a routine citation, one that he may or may not have seen, but one executed by his very office.
How many citations a year, for the last 40 years, has he seen? And this was 30 years (or more) ago, right?
So you asy he doesn't remember seeing it , and that he doesn't remember awarding it....implying that he also said that it was undeserved, (not said) or that it was awarded improperly...when you know (as does anyone who bothers reading MOST links you posted) that when he was gived a chance to object to the medal he didn't do so. He actually said that it probably came from his office, and he applied (or a staffer did) an autopen to it.
Have you seen what security an autopen is kept under? Next youwill be claiming that Kerry snuck in (or had "someone" do it for him) and stole one to get an extra citation for an award that he had already earned.
As far as your "documenting" things... [QUOTAll the statements I made have been documented repeatedlyE] [/QUOTE] I would direct you attention to this:
quote: Was he AWOL, a deserter? One wonders who might have pulled strings to get him an "honorable" discharge six years late?
Documentation? You didn't even bother to attempt a fabrication of documentation for this....yet...
You can ask all the questions you want, I suppose, but try a little harder if you expect people here to take you at your word.....or at least me to do so.
I don't have a problem with your, or anyones, political views here, but I reserve the right to object when you try to foist poorly researched, obviously biased speculation as genuine facts.
I don't claim to have all the answers, but I don't like the SwiftVets grinding their oh-so-obvious axe in public.
I don't like the moveon.org ads either, although I haven't commented on it here..that isn't what this thread is about, after all...
They are welcome to try and feed me a line of crap, but until they learn to disguise the smell a hell of a lot better I doubt I will be trying it anytime soon.
There aer SO many more important issues than these that I am ashamed at how much effort I have wasted on this already.
So far I have seen completely unsubstanciated allegations of cowardace, lies, murder, incomeptance, falsifying of documents, and being AWOL....
Any other unsubstanciated comments anyone else would like to make? All you haev to do is "quote" someone like this....
quote: Someone in a different forum who was a Lt. Col. in the military, offered this assessment of Kerry's action for which he was awarded a silver star:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Did any of you here previously hold a commission as an officer in the military, particularly in the Navy? Are you aware of the circumstances of Sen Kerry's Silver Star?
It regarded his beaching of his swift boat, and jumping off to chase down a wounded Viet Cong, shooting him behind a hut (out of sight of his crew). His Silver Star citation discussed his "heroism" in that regard.
There are some problem in that regard, however:
1. A Naval officer is NEVER supposed to leave his command, his boat, and his men. Kerry admits jumping off and chasing an enemy, going out of sight of his crew, and then coming back. Naval regulations actually should have given him a reprimand, if not relieving him of command, rather than an award. Correct procedure would have been for him to order a couple of his men to chase the guy down, if he thought the danger to his boat or the mission was so great that the killing of that guy was imperative. If I had been his commanding officer, I would have relieved him. (I was a Lt Col in the military).
2. Killing a wounded combatant is a war crime. Kerry claimed that "all" the people in his unit committed war crimes, but the only one we have actual evidence of is Kerry himself.
3. It is also a given in the Navy that one doesn't beach one's boat, except in rare and defined circumstances. And to beach one's boat while under fire, as Kerry claims, is dereliction of duty. Think about it: these small boats had a couple of weapons and not much armor. [Their hulls were made of aluminum.] Their chief defense was their speed and mobility. If one beaches one's boat, you remove all that and make it a sitting duck. Kerry's men are lucky that they all didn't DIE because of his stunt. Instead of making his boat safer, it made his boat in much greater danger, and unnecessarily so.
This is a Silver Star that should never have been given, as far as I am concerned. I put it right up there with the Silver Star that Lyndon Johnson got for riding 13 minutes in a reconaissance plane during WW2. What he [Kerry] did was not "heroic" - it was stupid, dangerous, and placed his ENTIRE COMMAND in unnecessary jeopardy. It is not evidence that he is fit to be Commander-in-Chief - rather it is evidence of BAD command decisions.
Onceagain, this is someone who was in another branch (if he really was in any at all) , and we have no idea or who he is other than who he claims to be...a minor officer, in a completely differnt branch of the service, with no experience on SwiftBoats, who obviously knows better than not just John Kerry (and everyone on his boat that day) but better than his commanding officers.....whom gave him a commendation rather than a court-marshall.
'Nuff said, one way or another.
See you on election day!
BTW, Ron, I was raised in Detroit until 1988....so hearing you mention local radio stations was funky...
Kwea
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Also...I can't type for squat, and that post is so long that if I go into edit it only sends half back when I repost....
Sory for the multitude of typos...I'm on my parents computer, and they didn't install ispell....
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Kwea.![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)