# Critical "Swift Boat Veteran" Retracts Charges Against Kerry



## PeachMonkey (Aug 6, 2004)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry/

 You'll note that this individual, Kerry's former commanding officer, who now claims he made a "terrible mistake" signing an affidavit accusing Kerry of being "undeserving" of the Silver Star, was the *only Swift Boat Veteran appearing in recent campaign ads who actually served with Kerry*.

 Now, isn't lying on an affidavit considered perjury?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 6, 2004)

Gee, a group of Republicans lied and essentially slandered somebody they politically disagreed with, against a background of their President's having used his daddy's connections to weasel out of the very service he now trumpets?

Color me shocked. But I am looking forward to the apologies (ha!) and the statements from people who recognize (that'll be the day!!) that such events create a few problems for their world-view and their political affiliations.

Remember:

Geo. Bush Sr.: WWII carrier pilot; shot down in combat.
Bob  Dole: Lost use of right arm, WWII.
Colin Powell: Vietnam-era combat service, and all that followed. 
George McGovern: B-24 pilot, 50 missions over Italy.
Jimmy Carter: Navy nuclear engineer.
Max Cleland: Vietnam vet; lost both legs and an arm.
Bob Kerrey: served in Vietnam as SEAL; won Medal of Honor.
John Kerry: Swift boat captain in Vietnam; three Purple hearts, Bronze Star, Silver Star. 

Hey! I know!! Let's fill in the military and combat service of:

Our current VP?
Bush's cabinet?
Tom De Lay?
Any of the war-trumpeting Republicans?


----------



## TwistofFat (Aug 6, 2004)

I am not a fan of Mr. Kerry and can not comment on the he said/he said rearding his service to our country.  It was a long time ago and there is clearly hard feelings all the way around.

My commentary on this issue is this new found requirement that one must have been in combat to be qualified or have an opinion on the running of our country or military.  If I remember correctly, Mr. Dole was soundly beaten by a man that did not serve (we all know his history in England) but used the military as much as any POTUS in the history of the republic.  The irony is while 'morale' of the troops ebbs and flows based upon the Commander, neither Clinton or Gore were vets of combat but did not neglect the armed forces as much as popular myth (from the Brookings Institution):
The Clinton-Gore legacy on military readiness is also better than some understand. Congress deserves much of the credit for keeping readiness high in recent years too. Yet however one allocates the political credit, inflation-adjusted military pay is higher now than when the Clinton-Gore era began eight years ago.

If Kerry or Bush wins in the fall - my primary concern is that we stay onto of these murderers and kill as many of these SOB's before they hit us again.

Regards  -Glenn.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Aug 6, 2004)

TwistofFat said:
			
		

> My commentary on this issue is this new found requirement that one must have been in combat to be qualified or have an opinion on the running of our country or military


 I have no objection to people who have not served in the military either offering opinions on the military or the country, or even leading them.

 My objection comes when individuals slander the record of others based on a supposed lack of "patriotism" from either not serving (in the case of Clinton, say), from having opposed a war (in the case of Kerry, for instance), or simply to damage them politically (see McCain and Cleland), *without having actually served themselves*.  This is, at best, hypocritical.

 In fact, using the sacrifices of soldiers as a basis to excoriate others drives me beyond any desire to maintain a cordial nature.  I will resist the words that come to mind, other than "chicken-hawk".


----------



## Kane (Aug 7, 2004)

I think the military crew with Kerry is telling the truth, and Kerry should be exposed. Some might say it is because the troops are angry because he spoke against the US troops of Vietnam. However, if that is the case then why is Kerry so afraid to show his medical records to the people?



There is no way any person can get three purple hearts in four months. Im sure he did some self-inflicted injuries. Either way, if Kerry got three purple hearts, the troops at Vietnam who got their arms blown off and what no should get 8 purple hearts. That goes for the Silver and Bronze star he got.


----------



## jime23 (Aug 7, 2004)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTION 2004
Vet denies retraction
of Kerry war criticism
Boston Globe story saying he backed off 'extremely inaccurate', 'highly misleading'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 6, 2004
2:16 p.m. Eastern



© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com 

A Vietnam veteran who appears in a television ad critical of Sen. John Kerry says a Boston Globe article asserting he retracted his criticism of the presidential candidate's war service is "extremely inaccurate" and "highly misleading." 

In a statement, Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth says "Captain Elliott reaffirms his affidavit in support of that advertisement, and he reaffirms his request that the ad be played." 

The Globe story by Michael Kranish said Elliott, in an interview yesterday, backed off one of the key contentions of a book to be released next week by the veterans group, "Unfit for Command." 

Elliott, according to Kranish, said he had made a "terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star. 

But the veterans group says the article is "particularly surprising given page 102 of Mr. Kranish's own book quoting John Kerry as acknowledging that he killed a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong soldier whom he was afraid would turn around." 

Kranish, who is covering the Kerry campaign, wrote the foreword to the official Kerry-Edwards campaign book and is listed as the lead author, the Drudge Report noted today. 

Telephoned for comment, Kranish declined to speak on the record with WorldNetDaily but forwarded a statement from the Globe which said the paper stands by the story. 

"The quotes attributed to Mr. Elliott were on the record and absolutely accurate," said the statement by Globe Editor Martin Baron. 

Baron asserted it is "completely untrue" that Kranish "was ever contracted to write for a Kerry campaign publication." 

The editor explained that "earlier this summer, Kranish worked with Public Affairs, the publisher of the Boston Globe biography of Kerry, 'John Kerry: The Complete Biography by the Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best,' to write a short introduction to a second project: an independent, unauthorized review of publicly available documents dealing with the platform and policy statements of Kerry and Edwards. " 

Baron said that when Public Affairs "subsequently struck an agreement with the Kerry campaign to do an official campaign book, Kranish's relationship with the project immediately ended."


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 7, 2004)

I believe that the attack by this 527 group will be interesting as it unfolds. I found an article yesterday that helped me understand better who the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are, and why they might be motivated to discredit Senator Kerry.

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth

In continuing to persue this course of action, I believe Persident Bush's service will also come under reviewed scrutiny. And all such reviews lead to a physical. There must be a record of Lt. Bush's physical somewhere; not just the physical to secure flight status, which he could, theoretically at least, have forgone while continue "equivilant service', but the physical required in the three months prior to his 27th birthday. As I understand it, the regulations at the time required *all* service personnel to complete a standard physical in order to continue their service. This record must exist if the Lt. was indeed serving his country.

So, the tally as I see it:
 Three Purple Hearts, Bronze Star with V, Silver Star *Versus *one dentist appointment.

We will continue to watch this side show, whilst our retirement funds continue to ebb.

Mike


----------



## TwistofFat (Aug 7, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I have no objection to people who have not served in the military either offering opinions on the military or the country, or even leading them.
> 
> My objection comes when individuals slander the record of others based on a supposed lack of "patriotism" from either not serving (in the case of Clinton, say), from having opposed a war (in the case of Kerry, for instance), or simply to damage them politically (see McCain and Cleland), *without having actually served themselves*. This is, at best, hypocritical.
> 
> In fact, using the sacrifices of soldiers as a basis to excoriate others drives me beyond any desire to maintain a cordial nature. I will resist the words that come to mind, other than "chicken-hawk".


PM - Firstly, is it not possible for people to question John Kerry that are not George Bush himself? I.E. the men who are bringing these issues to light (true or not) are men who served and were honored in VN. Several questioned Kerry 30+ years ago, debated him on TV (Dick Cavett's show, Mike Douglas) and even the great John McCann said his testamonies to congress were used by his VC wardens to demoralize him - this isn't new news. What is new is he is running for President.
I do find it ironic that when Mr. Clinton ran this was not an issue. The line then was is was military service was not important. Mr. Kerry's campaign is asking us to vote for him, in part, because as a war hero (no pun here) he will be tough on terror. Both men's service is a ligitimate issue to discuss, but not to disqualify. We have a war on now, what they did in that war 30+ years ago begins to fade in importance IMHO just as Bob Dole's valiant service 40+ years prior to his run for the office.

Regards - Glenn


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 7, 2004)

Congrats; an absurd response, and a symptomatic one.

For openers--by your logic, therefore it's not OK if a Presidential candidate uses his pappy's connections to get him into the Air National Guard, despite the fact that there were over one hundred applicants ahead of him on the list, and then has more than a little trouble documenting the fact that he even showed up for duty.

Fortunately, we don't know anybody who did this, so I guess the post is merely irrelevant.

Kerrey went. Gore went, though he was a PIO. McGovern went. Carter went. Bob Kerrey went (you may have heard him on the 9/11 commission?) and won a Medal of Honor. John McClain went. Clinton did not. Subsequently, their political positions matched their service and their explanations.

Nor do I recall anybody's saying that military service didn't count when Clinton ran. Could you perhaps offer references--I use the plural, because you seem to be saying that this was a common argument, or do you just wanna stick with the total rewriting of history? 

As for the absurd claim that Clinton used the military more than any other President (we call them "Presidents," and have since the founding of this Republic, as opposed to "Emperor," or "Fuehrer," or, "Maximum Leader," or some acronym bespeaking military expertise we've gleaned from a Tom Clancy novel)...Roosevelt? either one? Lyndon Johnson? Truman? Nixon? say what?

Again, I note that Max Cleland (lost both legs and an arm, Vietnam) and Bob Kerrey (Vietnam SEAL, won Medal of Honor) have been among the most maligned of Bush's opponents. And does anybody recollect the assorted crap that the RNC (Republican National Committee) put out about John McCain when he ran against Bush?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 8, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> I think the military crew with Kerry is telling the truth, and Kerry should be exposed. Some might say it is because the troops are angry because he spoke against the US troops of Vietnam. However, if that is the case then why is Kerry so afraid to show his medical records to the people?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way any person can get three purple hearts in four months. Im sure he did some self-inflicted injuries. Either way, if Kerry got three purple hearts, the troops at Vietnam who got their arms blown off and what no should get 8 purple hearts. That goes for the Silver and Bronze star he got.




_I think the military crew with Kerry is telling the truth, and Kerry should be exposed._

Well, that's likely not going to happen, Kane.  _The crew with Kerry is supporting Kerry.  _ Every living member of his crew has verified that he saved their lives the day he performed the actions that earned his Silver Star citation.  Every living member of his crew appeared on stage with him at the DNC.  The Special Forces lieutenant whose life he saved spoke for him at the DNC.

Medical records?  Bush's medical records hadn't been released as of June 25, 2004, either, according to NewsMax.  

The information contained in there might indeed be embarrassing to Kerry or Bush.  Were either treated for V.D.?   Had either been treated for a cut related to a fight in a bar?  Would you want it public that you have bleeding hemorrhoids?

Are you getting my drift here?  There might be a number of reasons they don't want the records released.

A guy can easily get three purple hearts in four months.  We could probably find a number of vets who had.  

Once awarded a third purple heart, veterans were shipped out of harms way and their tour came to an end.  And no, a person who gets his arm blown off shouldn't get eight.  Try running that zippy idea of yours by the Korea and WWII vets who got only one for being maimed.  We can't apply the "Kane Sliding Scale On Purple Hearts."

You have no evidence he self inflicted those wounds other than what you might be able to glean from men who didn't serve with him during the actions in question.  But you're "sure", eh?  You were there?  Where did you get this crystal ball?  Wal-Mart?

Note too that Republican John McCain has publicly stated that this attack on Kerry's record is stupid and unfounded.  He's a man who shoots from the hip.  He also might have been President had it not been for Rove and Bush's dirty tactics against him in the primaries...tactics not unlike these we're talking about.


Regards,

Steve


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 8, 2004)

What I find interesting about such arguments is their willful, and absolute, refusal to let either facts or the absence of facts influence their ideas. 

Why not just say that you don't like Kerrey's ideas and arguments? That you don't agree with his whole approach to things like, say, government?

Why even get into the personality and character of someone you DO NOT KNOW? especially when you've got no evidence at all for claims that there must be something wrong with their personality and character?

When you do this stuff, furthermore, it completey exposes the holes and contradictions in what you're saying. Clinton sucks because he didn't go to Vietnam, and opposed that war; Bush is fine, though he avoided Vietnam and subsequently shoved the country into what sure looks like an unnecessary war. Kerrey sucks because his wife has money; Bush is fine, though he grew up in an extraordinarily-wealthy family of oil multimillionaires. Kerrey sucks because he didn't do all that much during his twenty years in the Senate, which was preceded by ten or fifteen years of public service as a prosecutor and lieutenant governor; Bush is better because of his experience, despite his record as an indifferent businessman (three failed businesses), a Texas Ranger manager (at which he was apparently very good), and an adequate one-term governor. 

Huh? Why not just argue that you can't stand the ideas, the ideology, and try to explain why? 

I think it's because that takes knowledge and time. Personalities are so much easier, especially when you can just make stuff up.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 8, 2004)

*This argument has deep roots...*


EDITORIAL
It's Not All Fair Game

Times Headlines  

The GOP's war against Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry's Vietnam record has a history. It began in 1971 when the Nixon administration tapped another Vietnam veteran, John E. O'Neill, to form an organization called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace to discredit Kerry, then a freshly minted antiwar protester. Now a new group, called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which has O'Neill on its steering committee as well as other members with ties to the Republican Party, is rolling out a $500,000 ad campaign in swing states Wisconsin, Ohio and West Virginia to attack the Massachusetts senator's war record.

The GOP has no monopoly on deceptive tactics. But the smear campaign against Kerry relies on highly dubious accusations to sow doubts about a well-documented military record. 

It's a strategy that has worked in the past. Despite his own murky stint in the National Guard, President Bush did not hesitate to allow GOP operatives to distort Republican Sen. John McCain's Vietnam POW years during the 2000 South Carolina primary by claiming that being a captive wasn't a heroic action, like actively attacking the enemy. At a campaign rally for Bush on Feb. 3, 2000, veteran Tom Burch even declared that "Sen. McCain has abandoned the veterans. He came home and forgot us." This despite McCain's tireless efforts to discover if there were any missing Americans remaining in Vietnam. Then there was the GOP's depiction of then-Georgia Sen. Max Cleland during the 2002 midterm election as soft on terrorism &#8212; not to mention far-right columnist Ann Coulter's preposterous claim that it was Cleland's own fault that he lost three limbs in Vietnam because he mishandled a grenade.

Now Kerry is coming in for similar treatment. For example, a column by the conservative National Review's Byron York raised the question of whether the wound that Kerry suffered in December 1968 was really serious enough to qualify him for his first Purple Heart, which with two other Purple Hearts "allowed" Kerry, as York puts it, to leave Vietnam "before his tour of duty was finished." Doesn't Kerry's bold action in beaching his Swift boat, grabbing his M-16 and directly attacking Viet Cong soldiers firing at him and his mates indicate bravery? Apparently not. The new ad of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth depicts Kerry, like Cleland, as an irresponsible bungler. No evidence supports this, and McCain denounced the ad campaign Thursday.

Eyewitness accounts of Kerry's actions show that he acted with decisiveness and, yes, courage. Sure, Kerry evokes his Vietnam service with metronomic regularity and skates over his later opposition to the war. His denunciation of the Vietnam War in 1971 Senate testimony and his antiwar activities are fair game for his opponents. So are his dovish Senate foreign policy stands. But his war record is not.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 9, 2004)

This outlines how the ad campaign got "sunk".  

http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/2004/sunk.htm


Regards,

Steve


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Aug 9, 2004)

Ah-HA!  Thanks for the links.  Now I have more political history research to do in the wee hours when insomnia takes me, but thought-provoking....


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 10, 2004)

I'll just paraphrase Jon Stewart (The Daily Show host) on the allegations:

"Well, that would be really interesting...if any of them had actually served with John Kerry."


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Aug 10, 2004)

:lol:


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 10, 2004)

Here's yet another link to a very well done riposte to these allegations...no pun intended, given the name of the site:

http://www.eriposte.com/media/liars_inc/swiftboat.htm

Check out the glowing fitness reports and the comments from his men.

This page really rips the whole Swift Boats Veterans For Truth to pieces.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Gary Crawford (Aug 10, 2004)

That retraction does NOT suprise me after Kerry's lawyers threatened everybody associated with the book.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 10, 2004)

Gary Crawford said:
			
		

> That retraction does NOT suprise me after Kerry's lawyers threatened everybody associated with the book.


If you are speaking the truth ... then really, a threat of a lawsuit means little, dont' you think?

For those who haven't heard, the book alluded to by Gary Crawford is:

'Unfit for Command : Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry"

No doubt ... it is a herald of truth ... the exact opposite of Michael Moore's Falsenheit 911. Look for an official release date of August 15th 2004. It is sure to be on the NYTimes best seller list, and thousands of copies will make it to Richard Mellon Scaife's garage.

Mike


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 10, 2004)

Gary Crawford said:
			
		

> That retraction does NOT suprise me after Kerry's lawyers threatened everybody associated with the book.




If their claims are true, let them hammer it out in court with him.  If what they say is true, then it isn't libel.  Kerry, being a public figure, will have to prove actual malice on the part of the SBV members.  By that he will have to show the defendents knew their statements were false or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of the statement.  A defamation fame will probably fail if any of these requirements are not met.

If what they say is indeed false, and demonstrably so, then they face some peril in court.

From what I've read, they would do well to pull the book in the face of a suit.  They've got a tad too much going against them.  Too many of their allegations are contradicted by Naval records (Kerry's citations and fitness reports) and the statements of Kerry's crew.

Kerry ought to sue.  It'd draw attention to the issue.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 20, 2004)

So, it looks like Bush has some connections to this "Swift Boat" group.  What does this mean for the election?  Has the president broken the campaign finance law?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5771731/

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Tgace (Aug 20, 2004)

http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001789.html


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 21, 2004)

It looks like the President might have broken the law.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5771731/

upnorthkyosa


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 21, 2004)

Has Kerry yet to release his medical records?


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 21, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Has Kerry yet to release his medical records?


Has the President?

Where's the required physical report for the 27th birthday?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 21, 2004)

The AP has sued to get Bush's medical records released.


http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4731.shtml

I guess the ANG is a little embarrassed that Bush doesn't have any shrapnel in his leg.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 23, 2004)

How long do you think the Commander-in-Chief of the Unites States military will allow the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" to continue to smear the United States Navy?

Once again, a voice of reason is raised by David Hackworth (Col. US Army Retired).



			
				Hackworth said:
			
		

> As our commander in chief, Bush also needs to bear in mind that the U.S. Navy and its high standards for handling awards are now on trial as well.




http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target%20Homepage.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=79&rnd=221.34401551703925

P.S. 

The Thurlow / Kerry debate now has a third party that validates the 'official' record of what happened at 'Bay Hap'.

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=1692



			
				The Nation said:
			
		

> Three Navy men won Bronze Stars for their actions that day: Kerry, Thurlow, and radarman first class Robert Eugene Lambert, a petty officer in the boat captained by Thurlow. The citation for Lambert's Bronze Star--previously undisclosed but obtained today under the Freedom of Information Act from the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis--repeats the description of the incident included in the citation for Thurlow's Bronze Star: "all units came under small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks." Lambert's citation also notes that Lambert--who assumed command of PCF-51 after Thurlow went to assist another Swift boat damaged by a mine--"directed accurate suppressing fire at the enemy." The citation praises Lambert's "coolness, professionalism and courage under fire."


----------



## OULobo (Aug 23, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> I think the military crew with Kerry is telling the truth, and Kerry should be exposed. Some might say it is because the troops are angry because he spoke against the US troops of Vietnam. However, if that is the case then why is Kerry so afraid to show his medical records to the people?
> 
> There is no way any person can get three purple hearts in four months. Im sure he did some self-inflicted injuries. Either way, if Kerry got three purple hearts, the troops at Vietnam who got their arms blown off and what no should get 8 purple hearts. That goes for the Silver and Bronze star he got



Please, they handed out purple hearts by the barrel load in Vietnam. Ask any vet. As to why he is guarding his medical record, it's because it is his right. I sure don't want anyone unnecessarily seeing my medical records, it's none of their business. 

Without shifting too much of the issue to Bush, if I'm going to base my vote on a military record (which I'm not), then I would at least vote for someone who had the balls to be there.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 23, 2004)

Here's what we know that we can be absolutely certain about:

John Kerry, like Al Gore, served in Vietnam in some fashion. President Bush did not, having used his father's connections to get into the Texas ANG. Similarly, our current Vice President and Secretary of Defense applied for, and received, at least four draft deferments each.

Kerry got shot at, more than once. Bush did not, and neither did our VP and Secretary.

Kerry received several decorations, and was sent home after his third Purple Heart, received (like the previous two) for relatively minor wounds.

Subsequently, Kerrey strongly and publicly criticized the War, and testified to this before Congress.

Kerrey's job record includes some years as a prosecutor and lieutenant governor before he became a senator. Bush's record includes three failed oil businesses, several years as an administrator for the Texas Rangers baseball team, and one term as Governor.

When Kerrey remarried, he married an extremely wealthy woman with a ketchup fortune. Bush comes from an extremely-wealthy family of Texas oil tycoons.

Democrats such as Kerry, and Bob Kerrey, and Max Cleland, and some Republicans such as John McCain, have repeatedly had their patriotism and character attacked by Bush's campaigns, as well as by various extremely-right-wing Republican organizations. 

One of the heads of, "Swift Boat..." has been following Kerrey around since 1971, financed by right-wing groups, and appears to have no other profession.

Hm.


----------



## TwistofFat (Aug 23, 2004)

Don't forget Halliburton.


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 23, 2004)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=1&u=/nm/20040823/pl_nm/campaign_bush_ads_dc



> CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - Under pressure from Democrats and Republican Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), President Bush (news - web sites) on Monday called for ads attacking John Kerry (news - web sites)'s record in Vietnam to be stopped along with others run by independent groups, and said Kerry should be proud of his war service.
> 
> "That means that ad and every other ad," Bush said when asked if he wanted to bring a stop to commercials by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which accuse Sen. Kerry of lying about his war record in Vietnam.



It's not President Bush behind the ads. Also, it was Kerry who first brought up his Vietnam Record, not the Republicans. It's the only platform on which he thinks he can stand to run on. Too bad it doesn't necessitate being a war vet to become the President.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 23, 2004)

Here's something else we know FOR SURE:

The "Swift Boat Veterans," group is financed by an assortment of Texas oil millionaires and right-wing Republicans. Moreover, their tactics are exactly those used by Bush elsewhere.

But of course, none of these guys have ties to Bush, Karl Rove, or anyone else in the White House.

Of course, the real issues include:

1. Hawks who have several times evaded military service, and who have never gone to any of the wars they advocate.

2. Right-wing attacks on the patriotism and integrity of combat veterans.

3. Hawks who brush aside the advice of their commanders--Colin Powell comes immediately to mind--who HAVE in fact gone to war, and who learned a few worthwhile things.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 23, 2004)

Seems like Bush waited a while to condemn the ads; they have been in the media for a while.  Guess he was waiting until they sunk into people's minds before saying anything.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 25, 2004)

Benjamin Ginsberg - Lawyer for Bush - Cheney '04

Benjamin Ginsberg - Lawyer for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

Ken Cordier - Adviser to Bush - Cheney '04 for Veterans Issues

Ken Cordier - Appeared in Swift Boat Veterans for Truth commercial

Bob Perry - Long-time support of George W Bush

Bob Perry - Major financial contributions to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth



How long will the Commander-in-Chief of the military allow the Navy's award systems and records to be attacked by this organization?

Mike


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 25, 2004)

As long as it supposedly benefits his campaign.


----------



## D_Brady (Aug 26, 2004)

It's funny how the Dems can say and smear and point fingers and it's fine, but when some body hits back the CRYING starts.

 At least Bush never cried MOMMY make it stop like Kerry is right NOW>


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 26, 2004)

D_Brady said:
			
		

> It's funny how the Dems can say and smear and point fingers and it's fine, but when some body hits back the CRYING starts.


Odd sense of humor you have there. 

Can you expand on what the 'Dems' statements or commercials you are refering to when you say 'smear and point fingers'? I am not clear to what you are referring.

Mike


----------



## Tgace (Aug 26, 2004)

MOVE ON!! ........................................................................  .org


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 26, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> MOVE ON!! ........................................................................ .org


I am assuming you are answer this question



> Can you expand on what the 'Dems' statements or commercials you are refering to when you say 'smear and point fingers'?


It's odd that you think 'MOVE ON' is the 'DEMS'. 

Oh, yeah, that 'George Soros' thing.

OK .. I can stay open minded on that, although I disagree because MoveOn has been around, doing what it does since "The Impeachment". How many people are funders of MoveOn, and How many people are funders of SBVT...thinkabout it.

So again, I ask, How long will the Commander-in-Cheif of the United States Military allow 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' to assault the record keeping of the United States Navy and attack the methods with which the United States Navy awards service members.

If I were Admiral Vern Clark, I would be pretty pissed that nobody official is saying anything to defend the Military Records.

There is an 'Official Story' to Kerry's citations, you know?


----------



## D_Brady (Aug 26, 2004)

George Bush was AWOL during his National Guard Service " He can't even prove he was there". I heard that that daily for 4 months. Remeber the Dems brought the idea of service records to the stage before anyone, they didn't think that a BAND OF BROTHERS would be the one to say something. Bush NEVER made any remarks about Kerry's record other than saying it was honorable.

 Oh I have a question about 527 groups like moveon.org, Gore and kerry have attended there fuctions thats where Gore screamed "HE played on our fears"  So it's okay for them to publicly accept money and attend the events and show support for the 527 groups, but when one hits back CALL THE LAWYERS.

Bush never Cried Please John Kerry Make Michael Moore stop but when it flies the other way boy grab a tissue.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 26, 2004)

D_Brady said:
			
		

> George Bush was AWOL during his National Guard Service " He can't even prove he was there". I heard that that daily for 4 months. Remeber the Dems brought the idea of service records to the stage before anyone, they didn't think that a BAND OF BROTHERS would be the one to say something. Bush NEVER made any remarks about Kerry's record other than saying it was honorable..


Official Record = Bush did not receive the physical required prior to his 27th birthday. (This is not the 'flight readiness' physical, that you have heard about - which he did not take, and was therefore grounded) This is the physical that all members of the armed services were required to take in the 3 months leading up to their 27th birthday. If there are records that show this physical where is the evidence?

Official Record = Kerry rescued Rassman in Bay Hap river while being fired upon by 'small arms' and 'automatic weapons'.

Look at the EVIDENCE. SBVT just make stuff up. SVBT were connected to Bush through CASH, LAWYERS and ADVISORS.

Good Grief.


----------



## D_Brady (Aug 26, 2004)

Why should Goerge Bush make anyone stop saying anything, he needs only to watch his own mouth.

 Like John Kerrys used his own mouth to say the all vietnam vets are war criminals for the rapes, burings, murders, beheadings, that they all did so he claimes.

How about the american prisoners who were being beaten and tortured to abmit to crimes they didn't commit, the Kerry implcates them out of the kindness of his bleeding heart. Now the beatings get worse as the are forced to hear kerry's statemens if he admits it then you abmit it.

These are not my oppinons these are the stories from the BAND OF BROTHERS.


----------



## D_Brady (Aug 26, 2004)

What about the 527 groups where kerry and gore has appeared on there behalf. 

 New York Times published the papers on Bushes service in the Guard .


----------



## OULobo (Aug 26, 2004)

D_Brady said:
			
		

> Why should Goerge Bush make anyone stop saying anything, he needs only to watch his own mouth.



Because their statements are attacking the integrety of the United States Military as much as Kerry. 



			
				D_Brady said:
			
		

> Like John Kerrys used his own mouth to say the all vietnam vets are war criminals for the rapes, burings, murders, beheadings, that they all did so he claimes.



Kerry never said anything of the sort. His comments were on the injustices of the war in general, not the actions of any specific soldier. He never made the blanket statements and assumptions about US soldiers that you are making about him. Do you have quotes from Kerry where he calls all Vietnam vets (of which he himself would be included "war criminals" who committed "rapes, burings, murders, beheadings"



			
				D_Brady said:
			
		

> How about the american prisoners who were being beaten and tortured to abmit to crimes they didn't commit, the Kerry implcates them out of the kindness of his bleeding heart. Now the beatings get worse as the are forced to hear kerry's statemens if he admits it then you abmit it.
> 
> These are not my oppinons these are the stories from the BAND OF BROTHERS.



Taking stories from a propaganda rag is hardly a good way to base an argument. I'm not running around quoting "Farenheit 9/11", because I know it's a heavily edited, possibly fictional, movie with an adgenda.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 26, 2004)

D_Brady said:
			
		

> New York Times published the papers on Bushes service in the Guard .


Did you happen to read it?


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 26, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Seems like Bush waited a while to condemn the ads; they have been in the media for a while. Guess he was waiting until they sunk into people's minds before saying anything.


You seem to be under the impression that the President refuted the advertisements by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

President Bush *declined* to denounce the Vietnam ads. He called for the end of all independently funded ads.

*How's that First Amendement thing workin' out for you?* You remember, the part about 'Free Speech'.


Oh, yeah ... and From the Los Angeles Times article;



> "Military documentation that has been made public generally supports Kerry's accounts of his action."


----------



## D_Brady (Aug 26, 2004)

Yes but to tell you the truth it was old looked like bad copies about 30 yers old. Then all they talked about how Bush was never really qulified to land a jet on a carrier, so the papers really go unnotice, in the smaller of the 2 headlines.

People will generally read what looks more interesting.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 26, 2004)

D_Brady said:
			
		

> New York Times published the papers on Bushes service in the Guard .


And apparently, the NYT has not answered everyones' questions.

​


> Questions about Bush's Guard service unanswered​No explanation in files released by White House​By Dave Moniz and Jim Drinkard​USA TODAY
> 
> WASHINGTON  At a time when Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has come under fire from a group of retired naval officers who say he lied about his combat record in Vietnam, questions about President Bush's 1968-73 stint in the Texas Air National Guard remain unresolved:
> 
> ...


http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20040824/a_bushrecord24.art.htm


----------



## D_Brady (Aug 26, 2004)

I agree it's not a complete report in Bushes favor, but it shows they made his record of service an issue and they should you run for public office you should expect it. I say agin he never cried and asked people to stop hitting him with this stuff. My point on this one is why is everyone asking people to leave Kerry alone he's running for the same office.

When running for these offices you should expect to get hit from every angle just like every other election. John Kerry is my State Sen I know his record I ask you to please check it for yourself.

Do your homework it's your election Love kerry ,hate Kerry what ever but start by looking what he's done here in MA. I bet you don't.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 26, 2004)

D_Brady said:
			
		

> I agree it's not a complete report in Bushes favor, but it shows they made his record of service an issue and they should you run for public office you should expect it. I say agin he never cried and asked people to stop hitting him with this stuff. My point on this one is why is everyone asking people to leave Kerry alone he's running for the same office.
> 
> When running for these offices you should expect to get hit from every angle just like every other election. John Kerry is my State Sen I know his record I ask you to please check it for yourself.


 
Who is arguing that Kerry's record should not be reviewed. We should review Kerry's record very carefully. 

We should see how it is that he, with others, grounded his boat, jumped out of it, and chased an enemy that had been sniping the boats. For this, Kerry received a Bronze Star.

We should see how in the river Bay Hap, after a swift boat hit a mine, and a second explosion knocked Special Forces Rassman off the boat, that Kerry, while *under fire*, went to the front of the boat and pulled Rassman to safety. For this, Kerry received the Silver Star.

That's the record.

It is people who are lying about the record who should be condemned. The Commander-in-Cheif of the US Military should not allow any citizen to disparage the records of the Navy with lies.



> Do your homework it's your election Love kerry ,hate Kerry what ever but start by looking what he's done here in MA. I bet you don't.


By the way ... I was born and raised in Massachusetts. Agawam, MA. Thank you very much.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 26, 2004)

The thing that continues to astonish me is this: we KNOW, for absolute fact, that while John Kerry was in Vietnam getting shot at, our President used his family's connections to get into the Texas ANG and stay out of that War.

We know that people like Max Cleland went, and lost three limbs. We know that Dick Cheney and most of the rest of Bush's cabinet got deferments, and never served. 

We know this stuff FOR CERTAIN, but for some reason Kerry's military service is the big burning question. Uh....

If you've got problems with Kerry's antiwar stands, say so. If you don't like his politics, say so. If you think he's an idiot, say so. But to question the man's military service, on behalf of a President who avoided Vietnam somehow...I would think you'd have a shred of decency, or at least embarassment.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 26, 2004)

The accusations aren't that Kerry didnt go to Vietnam, but that he basically lied about what he had done there.  I'm hardly trying to defend Bush, I hope he gets voted out.  But the accusations are that Kerry lied about his actions, not that he didnt serve.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 26, 2004)

No, the accusations are that Kerry made it all up--and they are NEVER accompanied by the slightest awareness that the people bringing the accusations are bringing them on behalf of a President who, we know for an incontrovertible fact, used his rich family's connections to get out of going to Vietnam.

We know Kerry got shot at, on more than two occasions. We know Bush neverleft the country. We know that Kerry won several medals; we know that Bush has left some questions about even his ANG service. 

And oh yes: we know that Bush's campaigns have repeatedly made it a habit to smear the patriotism and courage of his opponents, on very little evidence.

Are the details important? Sure. Is Kerry my ideal choice? Nope. Did he paint himself in the best possible liught? Sure.

So what. Look at what we know for sure.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 26, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> The accusations aren't that Kerry didnt go to Vietnam, but that he basically lied about what he had done there. I'm hardly trying to defend Bush, I hope he gets voted out. But the accusations are that Kerry lied about his actions, not that he didnt serve.


THE ACCUSATIONS ARE FALSE!!

Why are we still talking about it?  Oh, yeah, because the professional ethics of journalism mean that reporters must 'balance' the story. Journalists don't ever come out and say ********!!

How many times has Sean Hannity played the SBVT commercial on the air for free, as part of the 'discussion'. 

THE ACCUSATIONS ARE FALSE!!

There is an official record of what happened. Those are the records of the United States Navy. That the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are accusing Kerry of anything means they are accusing the United States Navy of ignorance, deceipt or incompetance. How long will the Commander-in-Cheif stand for this assault on the proud institution of the United States Navy.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 26, 2004)

I agree: I hate seeing a group of loons, backed by oil millionaires, attack the courage and integrity of a man who went to Vietnam and served his country.

It's funny, but all that stuff we hear so much about--supporting veterans; respecting their service--goes right out the window when some folks hate their politics enough. I guess their constant call for sticking up for the services, unifying the country, etc., doesn't mean anything if they dislike you.

And it's especially obnoxious when the Rushes, Hannitys, Savages of the world--who never served, and who never went and put their *** on the firing line for any reason--get paid millions a year to attack the Kerrys, Kerreys, McGoverns, and Clelands of the world.

I don't expect anybody to change their minds. But they could at least have the decency to be embarassed by this sort of ugly malice.

And--speaking as an educator--they could at least have the brainpower and competence to realize that this sort of stuff has nothing to do with disliking Kerry's anti-Vietnam War position, or his lukewarm record as a Senator, or his positions on other issues. 

It's just a set of vicious, mean-spirited attacks by a pack that doesn't even consist of honest nutjobs--because most of these guys know better, they just figure anything to a) get paid, b) win an argument.

Incidentally, looks like John O'Neill has his own little current issue with truth--after years of telling people he was never in Cambodia during the War, a tape has surfacedof him tellking Dick Nixon that he was. 

Hm.


----------



## TwistofFat (Aug 26, 2004)

Does anyone else see a pattern here?  Say anything related to Kerry and get in return that Bush did X.  People have come out and said, Bush s*&^%, but Mr. Kerry needs to explain Y.  We get, "yeah, well Bush did this or that".  
If I come out and say I do not plan to support Bush, but would like to understand some of the things Kerry said about the military and the US after the VN war?  I would like to understand how he will support the current conflict with wing-nut mullahs bent on killing us in our homes?  How can I rectify his voting record in the Senate (a better measuring stick then his behavior 30+ years ago) which was not pro-military or intelligence, against the raising threat of NK or Iran?

If someone (hopefully Mr. Kerry) can answer that, then we can better decide who will be a better President.  (The typical answer is anyone but Bush...aargh!).

Regards - Glenn.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 26, 2004)

TwistofFat said:
			
		

> Does anyone else see a pattern here? Say anything related to Kerry and get in return that Bush did X. People have come out and said, Bush s*&^%, but Mr. Kerry needs to explain Y. We get, "yeah, well Bush did this or that".
> If I come out and say I do not plan to support Bush, but would like to understand some of the things Kerry said about the military and the US after the VN war? I would like to understand how he will support the current conflict with wing-nut mullahs bent on killing us in our homes? How can I rectify his voting record in the Senate (a better measuring stick then his behavior 30+ years ago) which was not pro-military or intelligence, against the raising threat of NK or Iran?
> 
> If someone (hopefully Mr. Kerry) can answer that, then we can better decide who will be a better President. (The typical answer is anyone but Bush...aargh!).
> ...


So, Glenn, if I can paraphrase ... what you need is a bit of "nuance".

What Senate voting records are you referring to? All of those bills should be fairly easy to look up and discuss, if we want to find specifics. 

As to how we should deal with the current conflict ... I think Kerry has laid out a plan to restore faith with our Allies and work with them to assist us in being more 'humble'.

As to how to deal with wing-nut mullah's (yes those are two seperate things), again, this requires strengthening alliances, so that we can effectively monitor behaviors and take action when required. Wing-nut Mullah's are only a cause for concern if they are going to actually take an action to kill us in our homes. Until then, if we take any action, we are just being paranoid. 

As to what Kerry said in 1972, it's all on record. Go read it. Please, read it. Because much of what Kerry is claimed to have said, was actually told to him from other Vets. Again, Nuance. But hell ... war is just that. It's ugly, people get killed, people kill, people do bad things. In the Norwegian countries, the legend of the Berserker can no doubt be seen in present day soldiers. It's ugly. Which is why, of course, war should be a last choice, unless, well .. .never mind.

I would gladly research some items to answer these questions, but we aren't seeing these questions. We're hearing the SBVT over and over and over.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 26, 2004)

Regardless of party... I find it funny how military service is IMPORTANT if your candidate has it and unnecessary if he doesn't.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 26, 2004)

I don't think Military service is important. Not one bit. I think that a civilian was put at the head of the military by design. Although, I saw this list of comparisons on Altercation today:



> *Category A:* Exhibiting the strength of ones moral convictions.
> 
> Supported the war and served in Vietnam (John Kerry, John McCain)
> Opposed the war and served in Vietnam because it would have been unfair to force someone less fortunate to take ones place (Al Gore)
> ...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 26, 2004)

And I find it, "funny," but not funny ha-ha, that the biggest Presidential hawks of the last century never served. 

Eisenhower did: started no wars.

Kennedy did: started Vietnam, but only small-scale. Pulled plug on Bay of Pigs just in nick; ducked war through negotiation and compromise during Missile Crisis.

Johnson sorta served: lunatic Vietnam adventure.

Nixon "served," as PIO (like Al Gore), launched into nutbar Christmas bombing, invasion of Cambodia, "madman," theory of foreign relations. (Oh yes: Tricky ran against McGovern, a decorated combat pilot--attacked his patriotism).

Ford? Dunno.

Carter: Navy officer; essentially Christian and pacifist.

Reagan: never served, waved flag lots--occasionally told stories about his service such as the one about helping to liberate a death camp, apparently because he'd played such a part in a movie.

Bush the First: decorated Navy pilot. Gulf War I.

Clinton: never served. No wars, either.

Bush II...well, you know. Pity Colin Powell didn't get elected instead.


----------



## TwistofFat (Aug 26, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> So, Glenn, if I can paraphrase ... what you need is a bit of "nuance".
> 
> What Senate voting records are you referring to? All of those bills should be fairly easy to look up and discuss, if we want to find specifics.
> 
> ...


Mike - that was an excellent response.  When I get back tomorrow I will dive into my response.  Regarding the faith of our allies - I did see that Iran has said no to the UN's request on the nuke fuel and the UN will impose sanctions in the near future.  How will Mr. Kerry get the UN to step up if sanctions fail?  If we find ourselves with another 1440 violation is you point that Kerry will get the UN to intervene?

Thanks - Glenn.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 26, 2004)

TwistofFat said:
			
		

> Mike - that was an excellent response. When I get back tomorrow I will dive into my response. Regarding the faith of our allies - I did see that Iran has said no to the UN's request on the nuke fuel and the UN will impose sanctions in the near future. How will Mr. Kerry get the UN to step up if sanctions fail? If we find ourselves with another 1440 violation is you point that Kerry will get the UN to intervene?


Do you think the Spanish would not vote to prevent the possibility of terrorism (Madrid trains)? the British (Lockerbie), Indonesia (Bali), Kenya or Tanzania (US Embassy bombings), Malta (Egypt Air Hijacking) Etcetera, Etcetera, Etcetera. The rest of the world has been living in the 'War on Terror' for at least twenty years. Working to prevent the proliferation of nuclear material, and to suppress terrorism is something they have been fighting for years.

But your question is not really what *my* *point *is (or is not), but rather, what has Candidate Kerry said about this issue.....

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0601.html



> Last week, I proposed a new national security policy guided by four imperatives: First, we must lead *strong alliances* for the post 9/11 world. Second, we must modernize *the worlds most powerful military* to meet new threats. Third, in addition to our military might, we must deploy all that is in Americas arsenal -- *our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas*. Fourth, to secure our full independence and freedom, we must *free America from its *dangerous* dependence on Middle East oil*.
> . . .
> Let me say it plainly: a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable. An America whose interest and allies could be on the target list must no longer sit on the sidelines. It is critical that we work with our allies to resolve those issues.


or here
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0527.html



> Any potential adversary should know that we will defend ourselves against the possibility of attack by unconventional arms. If such a strike does occur, as commander-in-chief, I will respond with *overwhelming and devastating force*. If such an attack appears imminent, as commander-in-chief, *I will do whatever is necessary to stop it.* And, as commander-in-chief, *I will never cede our security to anyone*. I will always do what is necessary to safeguard our country.
> . . .
> And let me be absolutely clear: As commander-in-chief, I will bring the full force of our nation's power to bear on finding and crushing your networks. We will use every available resource to destroy you.


----------



## Trident (Aug 26, 2004)

Mike - how can you say, so absolutely, that " _THE ACCUSATIONS ARE FALSE!!"_?  You weren't there.  Neither was I, nor likely anyone  else posting on this board.  
Memories of events from 30+ years ago can be a little hazy.  People can view the same event and come away with different ideas of what happened.  People often embellish the part they played in past events.  Statistically, though, you have John Kerry & a dozen or so supporters claiming one version, and 264 people who were also there claiming another.

Before we get all self righteous about this "assault on the proud institution of the United States Navy.", let me explain a little about how awards & decorations are supposed to be done: Say Ltjg Gronk does something really great, above & beyond.  His immediate superior should submit an award recommendation for said event to the CO, who will either sign it or reject it. If he signs it, it goes up the chain to a review board who will read the events summary & decide what to award, if anything, often months down the road.  The entire process assumes that the write up is accurate.  No one goes back to fact check, especially in war time.  Lets now way the Ltjg Gronk didn't do anything special, but really wants a medal anyway.  He submits his own writeup of events & convinces some more senior officer to sign off on it.  Once signed, process is the same, and no one is the wiser.  Highly plausible that a few months later, when the award comes through, Ltjg Gronk's shipmates could be ticked off & call "BS".  Too late - the award is issued and the citation is part of the official record.  I've seen it happen. This is the process, holes and all.  Clarification of this process is not the same as impugning it.

Robert - interesting that Kerry is a man of courage and integrity because he went to Vietnam, but the others who also served in Vietnam, yet dare to disagree with his version of his service there are a "group of loons"

Just my ex Navy officer 2 cents

Mike


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 26, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> The accusations aren't that Kerry didnt go to Vietnam, but that he basically lied about what he had done there.  I'm hardly trying to defend Bush, I hope he gets voted out.  But the accusations are that Kerry lied about his actions, not that he didnt serve.




The allegations are bogus and have been proven so many times over.  Giving credence to them when they've been exposed as the lies that they are is dishonest.  Supporting a falsehood when it has been exposed as such is immoral.

The problem I have with this administration is its dishonesty.  Whole books have been written about the deceptions, dirty tricks, slander, two-timing and trickery that have come out of the White House since Bush took office.  This latest attack ad, so much like the tactics used against Cleland and McCain, is icing on the cake.

I have close friends who when they hear the arguments against the Swift Boat Vets literally start shouting down the opposition a la Sean Hannity.  Its ridiculous.  They might as well hold their hands over their ears and chant "Na, na, na, na, na!!!  I can't hear you!"   It is a silly and embarrassing denial of what I suspect they know.  It is a lie.  The President they voted for-who promised to bring integrity to the White House-is backing a lie.

And its just one of many.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 26, 2004)

To quickly clarify, I don't support the accusations against Kerry at all, nor was I trying to defend them.  Just correcting robertson on what I thought was a misphrasing of them.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 26, 2004)

Mike - Do you really mean to suggest that these medals are there for the taking? Do you think so little of our Armed Services?

Here is the text; These are the official record of what happened on March 13, 1969. This is not my opinion of what happened (and I am a Left Wing Lunatic). These were submitted, reviewed, signed and stood as evidence for what happened for 35 years. 


Text for Bronze Star Recommendation for John Forbes Kerry
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/bronze_star_recommendation.pdf


> Bronze Star Medal
> Heroic = X
> Combat "V" Recommended = YES
> Has Service Been Honorable (if not, attach statement) = YES
> ...


Text of Bronze Star Recommendation for Radarman 1st Class Robert Eugene Lambert


> For meritorious achievement while serving with Coastal Division ELEVEN engaged in armed conflict against Viet Cong communist aggressors in An Xuyen Province, Republic of Vietnam on 13 March 1969. Inshore Patrol Craft [PCF] 51, with Petty Officer Lambert serving as Leading Petty Officer, was conducting a SEA LORDS operation in the Bay Hap river with four other boats. The boats were exiting the river when a mine detonated under another Inshore Patrol Craft, inflicting heavy damage to the boat and wounding the entire crew. At the same time, *all units came under small arms and automatic weapons fire *from the river banks. Inshore Patrol Craft 51 immediately proceeded to aid the damaged Inshore Patrol Craft, where the Officer-in-Charge [Larry Thurlow] leaped aboard to render assistance. Petty Officer LAMBERT assumed command of Inshore Patrol Craft 51 and directed accurate suppressing fire at the enemy. While administering first aid to the crew of the damaged Inshore Patrol Craft, Inshore Patrol Craft 51's Officer-in-Charge was knocked overboard. Petty Officer LAMBERT, without hesitation, directed Inshore Patrol Craft 51 alongside his Officer-in-Charge, where, from an exposed position and with complete disregard for his personal safety, he pulled him aboard. Petty Officer LAMBERT then returned his Officer-in-Charge to the aid of the damaged Inshore Patrol Craft and remained in command of Inshore Patrol Craft 51 until all units cleared the river. Petty Officer LAMBERT's coolness, professionalism and *courage under fire* significantly contributed to the rescue of his Officer-in-Charge and the damaged Inshore Patrol Craft and were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/veterans_awardrecommendation.pdf
Text of Bronze Star Recommendation for Larry Raymond Thurlow


> Bronze Star Medal
> Heroic = X
> Combat "V" Recommend = YES
> Has Service Been Honorable? (if not, attach statement) = REDACTED
> ...


----------



## deadhand31 (Aug 26, 2004)

Out of curiousity, was anyone listening to Rush Limbaugh today? There was one of Kerry's actual fellow vets (and this IS a decorated veteran) aboard his swift boat who stated that the first purple heart he recieved was self inflicted. I just want to know if I'm not the only one who heard it, becuase I'm sure now there will be a lot of people jumping down my throat just because it was on Rush Limbaugh.

Another interesting thing, I heard a clip from "Meet the Press" from 1971. It had Kerry saying that he, himself, took part in burning down villages, as well as other violations of the Geneva convention. One thing I wonder.... why on Earth is he touting stories that make him look good, while not even acknowledging that he basically called himself and his fellow vets war criminals?


----------



## Trident (Aug 27, 2004)

"Think so little of our armed forces"?  Please.  I spent 9 years active duty as an officer in the United States Navy.  I have a decoration or 2 in my service record, and I submitted a good number up the chain for the guys in my department. If you have more experience in this area, please feel free to chime in.  Now, can we dispense with the misdirection & get back on point?

The citations you reference are pretty standard:  they relay some "over and above" effort, they are signed by the unit CO.  The factual information the citation is based upon typically comes from a sitrep or after action report filed by the crew.  Obviously, the unit CO thought the writeup was good enough at the time, or he wouldn't have signed it. The skippers and crew of some of the other boats in the area have a different version of what transpired that day, according to their testimony in _Unfit for Command_, but they weren't interviewed before the citation was submitted. Nor would you expect them to be, as an officer's word is considered his bond. 

The point of my post was that while the vast majority of the Navy citations are well deserved, the system can be manipulated if you are shameless enough. Just because it's an official record doesn't mean that it is infallible.

Can we get back to my original question, which you deftly sidestepped: how can you say, so absolutely, that " _THE ACCUSATIONS ARE FALSE_!!"? 

Mike


----------



## qizmoduis (Aug 27, 2004)

Trident said:
			
		

> Can we get back to my original question, which you deftly sidestepped: how can you say, so absolutely, that " _THE ACCUSATIONS ARE FALSE_!!"?
> 
> Mike



Provide evidence that the official record is false.  So far, the accusations as presented by the so-called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" are basically secondhand hearsay.  All eyewitness accounts contradict them.  You are attempting to shift the burden of proof by flinging out a bunch of accusations and saying "Prove them false!"  It doesn't work that way.

This whole thing is getting slimier and more disgusting every day.  Every time I think it couldn't get any worse, Bush and his flunkies throw out something even more disgusting.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 27, 2004)

Trident said:
			
		

> Can we get back to my original question, which you deftly sidestepped: how can you say, so absolutely, that " _THE ACCUSATIONS ARE FALSE_!!"?
> 
> Mike


I did not side-step anything. I responded with the Official Records. To which you respond "Obviously, Kerry knew that thirty five years later, he was going to run for President, so he doctored up 3 phony Bronze Star awards, With Combat "V", no less, so that he can claim he was brave and will be an effective leader in the War on Terror."

I bet you even have one of those little yellow ribbons, saying "Support Our Troops" on the back of your car. Geesh ... with friends like that .... 

Oh yeah, and then there was this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5835000/



> Swift Boat crewman: Kerry boat took fire
> Says Thurlow 'too distracted' to notice gunfire
> 
> PORTLAND, Ore. - A Swift Boat crewman decorated in the 1969 Vietnam incident where John Kerry won a Bronze Star says not only did they come under enemy fire but also that his own boat commander, who has challenged the official account, was too distracted to notice the gunfire.
> ...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 27, 2004)

Funny how the military service of this guy, and Cleland, and all the rest of them, doesn't count if they step out of the loonbox ideological line one little bit, let alone genuinely disagree. 

But I see. It's the, "The Sun is really a great fiery dragon," argument. You know...the sun is a great fiery dragon...no, it's actually a start, fuled by nuclear reactions...how do you know? you weren't there, science only is about probabilities, and anyway we never really landed on the moon.

We know Kerry went to Vietnam and got shot at. Several times. We know that for some reason, he got decorated. We know that the Prez, his VP, our Sec'y of Defense, all of them, ducked out on serving in Vietnam--and they are now pushing, pushing, pushing wars. 

Sure, fine. Have it your way. Saw Bill Clinton on "Comedy Central," last night--he quoted a Republican friend of his who said something like, "Bill, I'm sorry we attack you personally like this all the time. But if we just argued the issues with you, we'd always lose." Then he remarked that he didn't think his opponents were bad people or anything--they just saw the world very differently. 

It is utterly gutless to attack character, and service, and family, the way that Kerry's been attacked. Go after his ideas, his plans, all the rest of it, no problem...but these clowns (who are always yelling about Americans sticking together) have no compunction at all about these mean-spirited little snipings. Have you heard any of them, even once, say anything like, "Look, I'm sorry to have to say this, but...." Nope. We get the likes of Hannity screeching incoherently--it's bullying by millionaries, nothing more, and it ought to be seen as such.

I heard Kerry's address and testimony before the Senate in 1971 last night. I had been lukewarm about him--no more. Anybody who has the guts to get up in 1971 and say those things, as well as being associated with the VVAW (other members of which I saw at a sign-up booth in 1972...at a Neil Young concert...in Phoenix, which believe me took some nerve) is OK by me.

Get on Pacifica. Listen to what he said. Think about it; evaluate its accuracy and honesty about the Vietnam War. Consider the clear fact that he put his heart into it.

If you don't like his ideas, fine. Lots there to ***** about. But martial artists ought to be learning a little more decency, a little more honesty, a little more about their own hearts and minds, than some of the abject crap on this thread suggests.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 27, 2004)

So much of this criticism is 35 years old.  And its coming from people (or those who learned from those people) who pushed an unjust war.  I think that Kerry's stance on that issue long ago is coming back to bite at him in the form of "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth."  

How else is the Bush Administration able to convince the hundreds of people who signed on with this group to do and say what they did?


----------



## Trident (Aug 27, 2004)

Mike - 

Please point out where I said any of those quoted items.  Although, the fact that the man carried around a video camera to reenact & record his daring exploits is interesting.

I pointed out how it is possible that citations could be manipulated.  After your unequivocal "THESE ACUSATIONS ARE FALSE" post, I asked to see how you came to that conclusion.   You chose to post the original citations & make digs at me.  Fair enough. You ended up answering my question, just in a round about manner.

qizmoduis - I never said they were false, I simply pointed out the process by which citations get issued.  Knowing this, I find it plausible that others who were there might have a different recollection of events.  

Reasonable people can look at this situation and draw different conclusions based on the evidence they find credible.  What qualifies as credible is strongly influenced by their own experiences & background.  It's the stark EVERYONE IS LYING BUT ME -type statements that I find interesting.

Now that I have been instructed that official records are infallible, and the burden of disproof (in this case) is on those questioning the record, I have another question:  Why isn't George Bush afforded this same courtesy in regard to his Texas Air National Guard service? Per the official records, he completed his service in an honorable manner.

Just wondering.

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 27, 2004)

Trident said:
			
		

> Please point out where I said any of those quoted items. Although, the fact that the man carried around a video camera to reenact & record his daring exploits is interesting.
> 
> I pointed out how it is possible that citations could be manipulated. After your unequivocal "THESE ACUSATIONS ARE FALSE" post, I asked to see how you came to that conclusion. You chose to post the original citations & make digs at me. Fair enough. You ended up answering my question, just in a round about manner.
> 
> ...


Yes, I was paraphrasing your argument. The double quotes were not appropriate. I apologize. 

But let's review what you said


> You weren't there. Neither was I, nor likely anyone else posting on this board.


No, I was not there. Fortuneately, we have official documentation.


> Memories of events from 30+ years ago can be a little hazy. . . .People often embellish the part they played in past events.


It's a good thing we have a written record from that time. It's even better that there are multiple documents that say, essentially, the same thing happened.



> Statistically, though, you have John Kerry & a dozen or so supporters claiming one version, and 264 people who were also there claiming another.


It is strange that those 264 people can not show one official document to back up their claims. But the documents we have all report 'eyewitnesses' (a requirement), all were reviewed and signed by superior officers, and sent up the chain of command until the commendations were authorized.
But, we may ask, WHY are those 264 people talking about this now? The logical answer is that Kerry is running for President. They didn't talk about it in great detail during Kerry's 4 Senate campaigns. Much of the funding the SBVT received came from a long-time Bush supporter. (Not to mention the free publicity from FOX NEWS and TALK RADIO). So this is really about Kerry running for president ... not about what happened 35 years ago.
Of course, as you persue this argument, it seems that the reason that Kerry might possibly have wanted to doctor his own commendations is to further his political career at some point in the future. Which, is where we started this conversation, isn't it?




			
				trident said:
			
		

> Lets now say the Ltjg Gronk didn't do anything special, but really wants a medal anyway. He submits his own writeup of events & convinces some more senior officer to sign off on it. Once signed, process is the same, and no one is the wiser. Highly plausible that a few months later, when the award comes through, Ltjg Gronk's shipmates could be ticked off & call "BS". Too late - the award is issued and the citation is part of the official record. I've seen it happen. This is the process, holes and all. Clarification of this process is not the same as impugning it.


Now here, Mike, are you suggesting that your commendations were submitted under false pretenses? Did you submit writeups of events that were not true? Or can we assume that you held your uniform with respect, and would not take any action to denigrate that uniform, your service, and those who have served before you, and who will come after you. 

I expect that the service means quite a bit to those who have served. And, as President Bush is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military Services, I think we should expect that he hold those services in high regard, and, as sworn to in his oath of office, defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies. And I think anyone who impugnes the integrity of the United States Armed Services is an enemy.

Now, in this latest post you say:



> Reasonable people can look at this situation and draw different conclusions based on the evidence they find credible. What qualifies as credible is strongly influenced by their own experiences & background. It's the stark EVERYONE IS LYING BUT ME -type statements that I find interesting.


To which, I say: "NO". In this situation, reasonable people can not look at the evidence and draw different conclusions. The evidence has been on record for 35 years. And we *must discard* the evidence to reasonably believe the accusations of John O'Neil and company. 

Now, are some willing to ignore the evidence? (there was a Blue Dress, after all, wasn't there?) Sure, but all of that is politically motivated. And if they repeat it often enough, loud enough, perhaps the 'BIG LIE' will be bought by enough swing voters to tip an election.

For the record: I think John O'Neil can harbor his 33 year old grudge against John Kerry any way he wants; but remember that it was a Bush supporter that has provided much of the funding for Mr. O'Neil to exercise his Free Speech.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 27, 2004)

Trident said:
			
		

> Now that I have been instructed that official records are infallible, and the burden of disproof (in this case) is on those questioning the record, I have another question: Why isn't George Bush afforded this same courtesy in regard to his Texas Air National Guard service? Per the official records, he completed his service in an honorable manner.


Now, it is you who are spinning hyperbole.  

While it is concievable that 'official records' may not be infallible, when there are complimentary records that all point to the same event, the possibility of failibility must decrease significantly, if not exponentially. In the Senator's case, we have several documents, some of which are not associated with Kerry, all reporting the same events.

If we turn to President Bush's 'official records' of his service, we find incomplete 'official records'. We find little supporting evidence to statements being made. A careful review of the 'official records' tends to create more questions than it answers. Often, where there are gaps, we must take the Presidents word on an issue ("I remember serving in Alabama").

Or this: http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm


> All members of the Air Force whose jobs required flight status were required to get a physical examination each year within three months prior to their birthday.  Those not on flight status were required to get a physical examination at least once every four years and were required to submit a certification of physical fitness to serve each year.  The periodic physical examination for those not on flight status required exams within eight months prior to the 27th birthday of all members of the Air Force.
> George W. Bush turned 27 on July 6, 1973.  His last physical was in 1971.
> Thus, regardless of what ARPC wanted to do with Bush, it was absolutely necessary that Bush get a physical examination before they could make any decisions.   And ARPC would have instructed Bush to accomplish that physical examination, and when he did not get that physical, ordered him to special active duty.
> The absolute requirement for a physical examination and annual certification of physical fitness is one of the choke points in Bushs military records.  All possible outcomes required that ARPC determine Bushs physical qualifications.  In order to achieve that, ARPC would have first instructed, then ordered Bush to get a physical examination.  We know, from Bushs records, that no such examination was ever accomplished.  Thus we know that Bush failed to obey a direct order to appear for active duty.


In other threads, I have mistakenly reported the requirement was 3 months prior to the 27th birthday. I was wrong; according to this article, the timetable is 8 months.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 27, 2004)

Soem of you guys don't like Kerry's peacenik stance (actually, that's not what he said, but wotthell), and you are perfectly entitled to do so. You don't like his policies, and you are perfectly entitled to do so. 

What you aren't entitled to do--but will do anyway--is violate your own ideals, notions about reason, and basic decency in order to attack not the ideas, but the man. 

Yes, yes, I know. You think, some of you, that the guys like me are doing the same thing. Most of it's projection; you assume that everybody else must use your tactics.

Some of it, alas, is a kind of defense mechnanism: you blame Kerry because you don't like what's happening to America, and really looking at what's responsible would  cause too much of a conflict with other deeply-held values.

I repeat: get hold of what John Kerry said before Congress. They showed it on CNN last night; shouldn't be hard. I know: the Voice of Communism. 

Nonetheless. Watch. Why you would find a young vet who spoke about honor, and this country's responsibilities, and what Vietnam really was, and the crappy way that vets were treated, so objectionable that you must repeatedly attack his whole life is beyond me. 

You needn't agree with his statements. You're more than welcome to explain why he was wrong to talk about the shabby treatment in veteran's hospitals, the rampant unemployment among vets, the racial inequality in who fought the War, the number of Vietnamese civilians who died for nothing--nothing at all!!--if you can.

Watch the tape. Tell me true: has our current President ever spoken that eloquently, that honestly, that passionately, for anything except favors for his buddies? Oh, and remember...while Kerry was in Vietnam, Bush was screwing around as a privileged man's son.

You know what? Shame on you. Shame on the Savages, and the Hannitys, and the O'Neills of the world, so filled with hate and blindness--and even worse, a cyncial knowledge of how they get paid--that they cannot even treat a veteran with honor.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 27, 2004)

*Reasonable people can look at this situation and draw different conclusions based on the evidence they find credible.  What qualifies as credible is strongly influenced by their own experiences & background. *

Translated, would that be "Republicans believe anything they're fed that is bad about John Kerry"?

Let's ask for some specifics here...what allegation of the Swifties do YOU think is "credible"?

*Now that I have been instructed that official records are infallible, and the burden of disproof (in this case) is on those questioning the record, I have another question:  Why isn't George Bush afforded this same courtesy in regard to his Texas Air National Guard service? Per the official records, he completed his service in an honorable manner.*

Nobody questions the Bush records.  The anti-Bush crowd LOVE those records.  They're all too clear.  He didn't show up for drills.  He missed a required physical and got his flight status yanked.  He got out early after spending a good deal of time campaigning for his Dad.  This is service?

But if one makes an allegation, such as that against the official records of Kerry, the burden of proof is indeed upon those making the allegations.   The Swift Boat veterans have so far failed to come up with any "credible evidence" as you call it to counter the official story.  So far what they've said has been contradictory, if not outlandish.

How do you explain Swift Boat Veteran for Truth spokesmen Larry Thurlow's account of John Kerry's Bronze Star nomination?  Thurlow was the senior commander of the operation, and likely wrote the after action report outlining what happened.  Thurlow and one other man won Bronze Stars during that action.  ALL THREE citations state there was enemy fire that day, which is verified by Jim Rassmen, the Special Forces Lieutenant who he pulled out of the water.

Yet Thurlow and Van Odell say there was no enemy fire during that operation...though there are damage reports for the boats, one of whom had three bullet holes.   

"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] 


George Elliot, Kerry's commander, said Kerry "lied about what occurred in Vietnam. . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

Later Elliott, in an interview with the Boston Globe, said, "I still don't think he shot the guy in the back. It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

Apparently it was pointed out to him that in a 1996 interview Elliott had said, "The fact that he chased an armed enemy down is not something to look down upon, but was an act of courage. [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] 

He also thought that Kerry went above and 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]

Elliot's fitness reports for Kerry were glowing.  

"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] 

Adrian Lonsdale says in the ads that Kerry isn't fit to lead.  Yet in a 1996 news conference for Kerry Lonsdale  said "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]

The last time I checked, NONE of the Swift boat vets served on Kerry's two boats, PCF44 and PCF94.  The men that appeared on stage with him at the DNC did serve with him.  One of those men was Jim Rassman, whose life Kerry saved the day that Kerry earned the Bronze Star.


http://www.johnkerry.com/rapidresponse/080504_truth.html#background

*"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] member of Kerry's crew.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 28, 2004)

Hey, the part I especially like is Thrulow ... Let's see, his Bronze star certificate says :


> All of these actions by LTJG THURLOW took place under constant enemy small arms fire which *LTJG THURLOW completely ignored* in providing immediate assistance to the boat and crew.


So, Thirty five years ago, he completely ignored something that today he claims with 100% certainty. 

Think about it. - Mike


----------



## TonyM. (Aug 28, 2004)

Gee as a RVN vet, whom would I like as commander and chief, a fast boat commander or a National Guardsman? Gosh that's a tough choice!


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 28, 2004)

"I think Senator Kerry should be proud of his record," Bush said. "No, I don't think he lied." 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/bush_interview

Few will ever read that...and I doubt he's going to run any commercials stating it.

-----

In an interview with the New York Times, Sen. John McCain said "that he was so annoyed over the veterans' television advertisements attacking Mr. Kerry's war record that he intended to personally 'express my displeasure' to the president when they campaign together next week."

In an interview with the Arizona Republic, McCain said, "I'm sick and tired of reopening the wounds of the Vietnam War, which I've spent the last 30 years trying to heal. Now, these wounds are being reopened in the most unsavory of fashion." 

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/08/26/mccain_will_appeal_to_bush_about_swift_boat_ads.html



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Tgace (Aug 28, 2004)

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.org/


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 28, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.org/



That is a crazy site.  There is a whole lotta ranting and raving going on.  Most of it revolves around Kerry's decision to protest the war in Veitnam.  By the way, that was the right decision and I respect him for it.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 28, 2004)

Doesn't this all just make you want to take a quick poll.


All of us who think the Vietnam War is something we as Americans should be proud of, line up over on that side of the room.

All of us who think the Vietnam War is something we as Americans should be less than proud of, line up over on this side of the room.

Somewhere in the last 6 months, we seem to have wilfully disregaurded the opinion that the country was fighting the wrong war, at the wrong time, for the wrong reason.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 28, 2004)

http://www.senatorflipflop.com/iraqwar.htm

http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/john-kerry-vietnam.html


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 28, 2004)

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263

Yeah, two can play that game


----------



## Tgace (Aug 28, 2004)

http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/john-kerry-vietnam.html

POW/MIA researcher Roger Hall comments, Now that it is fashionable for veterans to promote their military status publiclynow that it is popular to be a Vietnam VeteranSenator Kerry touts his service and medals. But in the 1970s, when it became fashionable to protest the war, he chose that issue to begin his political career and appeared to throw his medals over the fence. Now he retrieves them to flash before our eyes to distract us from his devious ways. Hall acknowledges that Kerry performed honorably in Vietnam. But he adds, One brave moment does not outshine a devious and duplicitous person.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 28, 2004)

Most of my posts have been to just "poke the bears" since most of the posts here seem to be mutual backscratching...  That last quote was a good point though. The guy tossed his medals, now he wants to use them to his gain. And we should "shame shame" Bush for questioning military awards systems?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 28, 2004)

I may very well agree about the backscratching, in view of the fact that I cannot expect reason and facts to convince anybody.

But no, we should cry, "shame," for anybody who uses his daddy's connections to duck out on service, spends the time (which people like Max Cleland spent in Vietnam getting large chunks of their anatomy shot off) hoorawing around Texas, runs for public office on a "get tough and shoot 'em," platform, repeatedly uses ads that attack other Americans who served in Vietnam, and to really ice the whole thing, calls upon Jesus for justification.

So tell me--which parts of this rant DO NOT fit Hizzoner?

Not that that'll have the slightest effect.


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 28, 2004)

Hoorawing....that actually sounds kinda fun.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 28, 2004)

Hmmm....choosing not to discuss the duplicity I see.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 28, 2004)

When has reason ever truly (be honest now) been a factor in politics, human relations or the entirety of history anyway?? Were (the media/this thread) arguing more about a war that ended 30yrs. ago than we are about the one thats going on now.

Sorry Im not "toeing your line" Mc...Ill let ya'll go back to preaching to the choir.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 28, 2004)

Sorry, there, but I'm afraid that this is simply a repeat of the point of been making: we know for uncontestable facts that Kerry served, Bush ducked out; that kerry got shot at under some circumstances, while Bush was screwing around in Texas on his daddy's money; that Kerry worked as a prosecutor and Lieutenant Governor while Bush was either repeatedly failing in the oil bidness or being a manager for the Texas Rangers under some very dubious financial circumstances.


We know this FOR SURE. So please: I'm dyin' to see the moment in which apologists figure out how to explain away reality, rather than just duck out on the issues--which, in this thread, have to do with the legitimacy of charges against John Kerry made on behalf of a rich boy who USED HIS DADDY'S CONNECTIONS TO EVADE SERVING IN VIETNAM. 

You're fussing over pretty minor details (yes, they're potentially important, or would be IF THERE WERE THE SLIGHTEST SOLID PROOF THAT KERRY ACTUALLY DID ANYTHING WRONG) but we KNOW that Kerry went and Bush ducked out. We  know that Kerry got up and said what he though, before Congress, under very difficult circumstances, and we know that the President never risked jack for nobody and nothing.

Doesn't matter, does it? Eyewitness accounts, Navy records, medical records, doesn't matter. 

You don't like Kerry's ideas and policies, and you don't want to argue with those. So, all this other claptrap.

Hannity's the same way. I saw him the other night on FOX, screeching that his good friend Ollie North never committed any atrocities in Vietnam...thus calling on the moral integrity of the guy who  WE KNOW FOR ABSOLUTE FACT "masterminded," selling arms to Iran and using the money to fund right-wing death squads. I laughed for five minutes straight.

Hey, didja go look at Kerry's testimony to Congress? The SOB talked about what America meant, about the honor vets deserve, about the stupidity of the Vietnam War, about what actually happened there, about how much he hoped this country lived up to its own best principles. 

OOOH, now there's a BAD man.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 28, 2004)

Hmmm...whos debating who served or not? I have, have you? Who cares....As a veteran I choose not to like somebody who tosses away his uniform/awards/service and picks it up again when its convenient. You will note I havent claimed he didnt deserve his awards in the first place. If you can get out of the way of your massive intellect and righteous indignation...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 28, 2004)

I see. This is the move I meant:  can't respond to the question, can't make the facts go bye-bye, so therefore---ze attack personal!!

Mr. tgrace, Kerry was wearing fatigues when he testified, as members of the VVAW generally did. Looks like he didn't dump the uniform after all.

Furthermore, if there's anything he's been clear on consistently, it's the stand he took about Vietnam and about being a vet. 

And did Bush serve in a way that you're absolutely comfortable with? Doesn't bother you in the least that this is a rich family's son who used connections to weasel out of going to Vietnam? Doesn't raise an eyebrow that this is a guy who spent most of his life screwing around, who has very little political or adminsistrative experience, against a guy who--wealth or not--has spent the last 35 years in public service?

No, I thought not.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 29, 2004)

Hmmm...Is there any post here that has me claiming I want to vote for pres. Bush? Nope, I dont think so...I just dont like the Medal Slinging, "uniform abandoning" ("Uniform" means more than the clothes...I dont expect youd understand), Kerry either. I "dont mind" Mr. Edwards, but.....

Personal attack?? I think when Mr. Kerry tossed his awards against the fence he made that public. I think the lack of focus on the issues is the politicians own damn fault. They only say what we want to hear to garner votes. The public has caught on to that and now just consider it "background noise". 

So what is it you want Mc? Should I just agree with everything you say or just not post my opinions since you cant seem to have a civil discussion with anybody who disagrees with you.....


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 29, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Hmmm....choosing not to discuss the duplicity I see.




Here's a fun one related to the topic.

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/fiore/2004/08/08_203.html


And below a comment on the issue of flip flopping.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 29, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Most of my posts have been to just "poke the bears" since most of the posts here seem to be mutual backscratching...  That last quote was a good point though. The guy tossed his medals, now he wants to use them to his gain. And we should "shame shame" Bush for questioning military awards systems?


As others have pointed out, Bush is *not *questioning military awards systems (although, I do believe his surrogates are). I am mad as hell that the President, as CIC, is not defending those systems. 

I did not serve in the military. I did not support the invasion of Iraq. I believe President Bush, and Vice President Cheney committed *impeachable* offensives in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq.

I do however, hope that the soldiers on the ground are always properly armed, properly trained and effectively commanded. 

I find it curious to see all those 'Support Our Troops' ribbons on the same cars as 'Bush/Cheney'04' stickers and not hear the right calling for the President to personally denounce the attacks on the Military systems. More than curious, amazing really; and sad.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 29, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Hmmm...Is there any post here that has me claiming I want to vote for pres. Bush? Nope, I dont think so...I just dont like the Medal Slinging, "uniform abandoning" ("Uniform" means more than the clothes...I dont expect youd understand), Kerry either. I "dont mind" Mr. Edwards, but.....
> 
> Personal attack?? I think when Mr. Kerry tossed his awards against the fence he made that public. I think the lack of focus on the issues is the politicians own damn fault. They only say what we want to hear to garner votes. The public has caught on to that and now just consider it "background noise".
> 
> So what is it you want Mc? Should I just agree with everything you say or just not post my opinions since you cant seem to have a civil discussion with anybody who disagrees with you.....


I guess a legitimate question would then be, How do you feel about Senator Kerry's efforts to normalize relations with Vietnam? How do you feel about the Senator working to establish 'National POW/MIA Recognition Day'?

One other thought, the 'Lack of Issues', I think is not the politicians own fault, but rather, it is exactly their fault. I believe Karl Rove gave the 'wink & nod' to the SBVT to make this the issue of the day. And Talk Radio, Fox News, the Drudge Report, and the extreme right wing 'Echo Chamber' is doing its job; propelling this libelous story into the 'real news'.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 29, 2004)

I'd like rationality and a basic awareness of reality, but I do understand that writing guff such as, "If you can get out of the way of your massive intellect and righteous indignation...," remains much easier. I should be especially unsurprised because, on a rather more-significant level, this is precisely what's happening with the election.

And I still see that folks don't seem to want to address issues and facts--such as Bush's peculiar military service--about which we are absolutely certain. Hm.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 31, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I guess a legitimate question would then be, How do you feel about Senator Kerry's efforts to normalize relations with Vietnam? How do you feel about the Senator working to establish 'National POW/MIA Recognition Day'?


Ill let these folks answer that...
http://www.powmiafamiliesagainstjohnkerry.com/

"In retrospect, it is clear that John Kerry had but one goal as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs. His goal was to remove the issue of Prisoners of War and Missing in Action, as a roadblock to trade and normalization of relations with Vietnam. The question is.... why? 


All we need to do is look at two events which occurred shortly after the committee presented its finding, in January 1993. 

Francis Zwenig, staff director for the Committee, who was often seen during hearings whispering in Kerry's ear, became Vice President of the U.S. - Vietnam Trade Council. Ms Zwenig, who helped shaped the conclusion of the committee and its final report was now benefitting financially from the committee's efforts to close the POW/MIA issue. 

In June of 1993, as reported in a Boston Herald article by Michael E. Knell, "Colliers International brokered a $905 million dollar deal to develop a deep sea port in Vietnam.." To skirt the trade embargo still in effect against Vietnam, Colliers International acted through its partner firm Colliers Jardine based in Singapore. At the time the deal was brokered, C. Stewart Forbes was the Chief Executive Officer of Colliers International. 

All through 1993 and into early 1994, John Kerry pushed for the lifting of the trade embargo against Vietnam, citing of Vietnamese cooperation on the POW/MIA issue. As evidenced in the articles of Sydney Schanberg and scripted event involving Senator Kerry and Col. Pham Duc Dia, Vietnamese cooperation was clearly a myth. 

Yet, Kerry persisted in his campaign to lift the trade embargo. Finally, his efforts were rewarded in February 1994, when President Clinton lifted the embargo. 

Did Kerry have an another agenda, beyond the stated goals of the committee? Before you answer that question, there is one other piece of information you need to know. C. Stewart Forbes CEO of Colliers International and John Forbes Kerry are cousins. 

Did financial gain motivate Kerry's actions as Chairman of the Select Committee? Perhaps someone in the media will ask the question."


----------



## Tgace (Aug 31, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I'd like rationality and a basic awareness of reality, but I do understand that writing guff such as, "If you can get out of the way of your massive intellect and righteous indignation...," remains much easier. I should be especially unsurprised because, on a rather more-significant level, this is precisely what's happening with the election.
> 
> And I still see that folks don't seem to want to address issues and facts--such as Bush's peculiar military service--about which we are absolutely certain. Hm.


Well, I do try to avoid personal attacks...call it a "gut reaction" to the typically insulting "tone" of some of the posters around here. I will try to avoid it in the future. 

As to Bushes military service, yes he got into the NG to avoid going to Vietnam as many people did and many others would have done if they had the chance. He apparently wasnt dishonorably discharged. Clintons lack of service apparently didnt hurt him. 

I did some NG time myself and can say I dont find the records issues and absence from training too surprising (sad as that is). The current state of affairs has forced the NG to get their paperwork in order. I just hope that people realize that the NG of today is not that of the 60's. Two comrades of mine lost their lives in Iraq while in the service of the NG.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 31, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Ill let these folks answer that...
> http://www.powmiafamiliesagainstjohnkerry.com/
> 
> "In retrospect, it is clear that John Kerry had but one goal as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs. His goal was to remove the issue of Prisoners of War and Missing in Action, as a roadblock to trade and normalization of relations with Vietnam. The question is.... why?
> ...



Apparently you are fond of _conspiracy theories _ as well...  Honestly, I have no problem talking about these things, but I would like you to recognize this for what it is.

upnorthkyosa  :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 31, 2004)

While I very much appreciate your courtesy, tgrace, I realize that it's not very surprising that Guard paperwork sucked, and assuredly the Guard today is more than a little different, I also think that these unsubstantiated allegations about Kerrey and Vietnam are exactly what the damn problem is with the, "Swift Boat," nastiness.

Kerry has his Navy paperwork, pretty much complete, and it pretty much backs up his story; for many that's meaningless, or evidence that he was up to something; Bush's ANG paperwork is a mess, it doens't support him very well at all, and for many that's evidence that he did nothing sleazy.

Huh?

We know for FACTS--no leaps of faith necessary--that Bush comes from an oil tycoon family with strong ties to Saudi Arabia; that he himself was closely allied with the likes of Ken Lay; that his VP ran Halliburton during some of their criminal activity; that companies such as Bechtel, with which both Cheney and Bush have strong, clear ties, got no-bid contracts (against federal law, I believe) for work in Iraq. 

See what I mean? You're relying on maybes to attack Kerry--and maybe you're right--but we KNOW FOR FACTS some of the crap Bush has been up to (look into the extraordinary sweetheart deal he got with regard to the Texas Rangers!), and it doesn't seem to faze you in the least. 

So why is that?


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 31, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> See what I mean? You're relying on maybes to attack Kerry--and maybe you're right--but we KNOW FOR FACTS some of the crap Bush has been up to (look into the extraordinary sweetheart deal he got with regard to the Texas Rangers!), and it doesn't seem to faze you in the least.
> 
> So why is that?



I don't think that Tgace supports President Bush or Senator Kerry.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 31, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Ill let these folks answer that...
> http://www.powmiafamiliesagainstjohnkerry.com/
> 
> "In retrospect, it is clear that John Kerry had but one goal as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs. His goal was to remove the issue of Prisoners of War and Missing in Action, as a roadblock to trade and normalization of relations with Vietnam. The question is.... why?
> ...


Okay ... so this group is arguing that Kerry participated in Patronage. Are you submitting their argument as representative of your point of view? 

In light of the Patronage going on in the Bush Admininstration, I can not help but get a chuckle. 

Of course, I believe both political parties participate in such behavior, but the Republicans certainly seem to be more proud of it.


Also ... Found this concerning SBVT ... .


			
				NYT said:
			
		

> *Columnist Has Ties to Anti-Kerry Book*
> 
> [size=-1]*By JACQUES STEINBERG*[/size]
> 
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Aug 31, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I don't think that Tgace supports President Bush or Senator Kerry.


Apparently if you say something bad about a Dem. your a Rep. supporter...:shrug:


----------



## Tgace (Aug 31, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Apparently you are fond of _conspiracy theories _as well...  Honestly, I have no problem talking about these things, but I would like you to recognize this for what it is.
> 
> upnorthkyosa :asian:


One post does not a conspiracy theorist make. 

I really wasnt well informed about what POW/MIA's thought about Kerry so I did a little research is all...thats just some of what I found.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 31, 2004)

This would be, I believe, the same Robert Novak who exposed the CIA agent serving in a foreign country because he didn't like her husband?

Clearly, Novak's beautifully qualified to yak about patriotism.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 31, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> we KNOW FOR FACTS some of the crap Bush has been up to (look into the extraordinary sweetheart deal he got with regard to the Texas Rangers!), and it doesn't seem to faze you in the least.
> 
> So why is that?


How do you know that it dosent? I just dont see the need to jump on the bandwagon. I also dont like the idea that Kerry is "immune" to criticism because he isnt Bush. Lets be fair now and see how many Kerry conspiracy theories we can find before we put him in office. ....Problem is we have to pick one or the other (Yeah I know, Nader, but come on).


----------



## Tgace (Aug 31, 2004)

Just a little more...

http://www.nationalalliance.org/mccreary/index.htm
http://www.powforum.org/fans2.htm


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 31, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> One post does not a conspiracy theorist make.
> 
> I really wasnt well informed about what POW/MIA's thought about Kerry so I did a little research is all...thats just some of what I found.


*SOME* of what you found? What else might you have found? Perhaps something that shows a different point of view? What conclusions did you draw from what you found?

Or are you just posting this out here to put a little bit of gasoline on the fire?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 31, 2004)

Hell, I haven seen much water thrown on the Bush fire you have going here....(Bush fire get it???)

To be fair I did find this...
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040315&c=2&s=corn
http://kerry.senate.gov/low/record.cfm?id=181558
Just google "Kerry POW MIA" and see what you get......


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 31, 2004)

Who exactly was it who argued, or so much as suggested, that Kerry's immune from criticism? Could you point that out to me, please? What's the title of this thread again?

Tell you the truth, I'm rather more outraged about the shoddy logic, mean-spirited and childish rhetoric, and distortion/absence of facts on the part of the Swifties than I am by the abuse of a politican. Though I do think it's a dangerous way to make one's political points.

The bad news and unfortunate fact is, public discourse WAS often more intelligent and better informed back in the 1960s. Partly because of the sad failure of English teachers like myself, more and more people--at least, that's how it seems--appear to think that ANY wackadoo opinion, ANY vicious insult, ANY distortion of reality, is OK.

I blame Savage and the rest, in part. But what's even worse, these well-paid bullies teach that you can not only be an ignoramus, but you don't have to find anything out for yourself, either. Then they throw around words like, "open-mindedness," scream that liberals are traitors, collect the fat check, and go home.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 31, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Apparently if you say something bad about a Dem. your a Rep. supporter


Working from the assumption that you support neither, and the knowledge that it is these two who are going to comprise the choices available on the ballot in November. I submit two fairly thoughtful articles by conservatives.

Christopher Dickey
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5878893/site/newsweek/

Fareed Zakaria
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5709288/site/newsweek/

Mike


----------



## Tgace (Aug 31, 2004)

Good articles....Whats Kerrys plan? Ive heard the bring troops home and make America safer line, thats nice, but whats the "solution" to Iraq/Terrorism? Neither side seems to be able to articulate one very well.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 31, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Then they throw around words like, "open-mindedness," scream that liberals are traitors, collect the fat check, and go home.


Why do so many people believe it? Theres a need/feeling/emotion thats being fed. It is said that terrorism is a backlash for arrogant American foreign policy...judging from the crowds that listen to right-wing media, could it be that liberals are experiencing a backlash too?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 31, 2004)

Last two posts seemed dead on to me, for what that's worth.

As for what in the hell to do, I'm sort of a "Take a time machine back and change some of the incredibly stupid, exploitative and arrogant things that Europe and America have done in the Mid-East," school of thought.

Not too helpful in view of reality, I realize...


----------



## Tgace (Aug 31, 2004)

Were in a "@#$% or get off the pot" situation now....Vietnam and personal issues aside, Kerrys biggest weakness (to me) is lack of a plan in regards to Iraq/Terror War. I want more than election year soundbites. Iraq aside (as much as you can..) The Bush admin. has been effective, like Mikes article reference stated, in overthrowing the Taliban, rounding up Al Queda etc..It just dosent seem to know what the long range plan is.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 1, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Good articles....Whats Kerrys plan? Ive heard the bring troops home and make America safer line, thats nice, but whats the "solution" to Iraq/Terrorism? Neither side seems to be able to articulate one very well.


You can Choose Bush.
You can Choose Kerry.
You can Choose Nader (Bush).
You can choose not to participate.
* I can't think of any other options, can you? 

You can vote *for *a candidate.
You can vote *against* a candidate.
You can choose not to participate.
* I can't think of any other options, can you?

These articles suggest that all of the accomplishments of the Bush administration have not reached a measureable conclusion. Certianly, they are arguing voting *against *a candidate. And you may not like that the positions are negative toward Bush, as opposed to postive toward Kerry. But when you get into the voting booth, you still, really, have only two choices. 


As for Kerry's plan:


			
				John Kerry dot Com said:
			
		

> *Directing Military Action to Destroy and Disrupt Terrorist Networks*. .
> 
> *Keeping Weapons of Mass Destruction Out of Terrorist Hands*.
> 
> ...


P.S. and since this thread is about SBVT .... there's this:
http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0831-03.htm



			
				common dreams said:
			
		

> [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]WASHINGTON - August 30 - A new Media Matters for America (MMFA) analysis finds that in 2004, media coverage of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's baseless attacks on John Kerry's war record has been more than twice that of the coverage of the controversy over George W. Bush's service in the Alabama National Guard:[/font]
> 
> [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Both current major-party presidential candidates served their country during Vietnam. Both candidates' service has been questioned.[/font]
> 
> ...


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 1, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The Bush admin. has been effective, like Mikes article reference stated, in overthrowing the Taliban, rounding up Al Queda etc..It just dosent seem to know what the long range plan is.




HERE is what I find frightening about the Bush Neocon administration, summed up in a Bush quote from the Dickey article:

"We will win by staying on the offensive, we will win by spreading liberty.''

Bush and his administration apparently want to "spread liberty" throughout the 22 Arab states.  Bush would propose to seed liberty throughout the Islamic states where freedom of speech, women's suffrage and freedom of religion is not only repressed, but actually anathema amongst the majority of the population.  To millions of Muslims we are the "evil empire", and with each military incursion onto Arab soil that paradigm is spread even further.

Neocon Norman Podhoretz wrote in _Commentary_  "The regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown...are not confined to the three singled-out mambers of the axis of evil [Iraq, Iran, North Korea].  At a minimum the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as "friends" of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian  Authority."

Podhoretz and other neocon warhawks wrote Bush a political ultimatium in a letter nine days after the 9-11 attacks essentially demanding an invasion of Iraq or face political censure.  Richard Perle, Podhoretz, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Richard Perle, William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer all signed the letter.  Many are vociferous in their support of what Podhoretz calls "World War Four", wherein the United States overthrows those nations listed above.

So, we will "spread liberty" at the point of a gun and force it down the throats of a people whose very religion, when translated, means "submission".

Since when did we become the Soviet Union in attempting to force our ideaology on others?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Tgace (Sep 1, 2004)

> Directing Military Action to Destroy and Disrupt Terrorist Networks. .
> 
> Keeping Weapons of Mass Destruction Out of Terrorist Hands.
> 
> ...



Heck anybody can say that. What, in comparison to what isnt being done now, does he propose?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 1, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Heck anybody can say that. What, in comparison to what isnt being done now, does he propose?





> Originally Posted by *John Kerry dot Com*




Please? You're kidding right.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 1, 2004)

???


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 1, 2004)

> Were in a "@#$% or get off the pot" situation now....Vietnam and personal issues aside, Kerrys biggest weakness (to me) is lack of a plan in regards to Iraq/Terror War. I want more than election year soundbites. Iraq aside (as much as you can..) The Bush admin. has been effective, like Mikes article reference stated, in overthrowing the Taliban, rounding up Al Queda etc..It just dosent seem to know what the long range plan is.


 I believe that one aspect of Kerry's plan is to mend relationships with our (former) allies, who Bush and his administration has managed to alienate, and bring them and the U.N. into the picture.  I think Kerry knows that we are committed for a while in Iraq.  That means we need more funding for our troops - including NOT cutting their wages and benefits, as Bush did.  The long-term picture, in terms of preventing terrorist attacks, is on solid relationships with other countries, as well as adequately funding our own Department of Homeland Security.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 5, 2004)

To be fair to Mr. Kerry. I did find an interview with the Foreign Leigon where he said some interesting things....

http://www.legion.org/?section=publications&subsection=pubs_mag_index&content=pub_mag_kerry


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 6, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> To be fair to Mr. Kerry. I did find an interview with the Foreign Leigon where he said some interesting things....
> 
> http://www.legion.org/?section=publications&subsection=pubs_mag_index&content=pub_mag_kerry




A good article.  Thanks for posting it. Kudos to the AMERICAN Legion for printing it.  I believe Kerry has yet to do an article with the Foreign Legion...that gallant French fighting force that celebrates all its defeats.  Kerry speaks French though, so maybe he'll get around to it.  

In analyzing what Kerry will do on the WOT ("War On Terra"), one must consider what Bush is doing.  Bush's Middle East policy is currently being driven by a number of Neo-conservatives ("Neocons") who have an expressed agenda involving the overthrow of a number of "rogue states" that threaten us.  Their stated goal is to reform Islam--by force if necessary.

Here's an article outlining their agenda by the "Godfather" of the Neo-conservative movement, Norman Podohertz:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/podhoretz.htm

This is something paleo-conservatives (and Bush detratctors) like Pat Buchanen think is impossible.  Islam, Buchanen points out, means "submission."  It is a religion that does not tolerate the notions of freedom and Democracy...even though freedom and democracy have been amazingly tolerant of Islam.

Interestingly, neo-conservativism grew from a liberal movement. Michael Lind has observed, "Most neoconservative defense intellectuals have their roots on the left, not the right. They are products of the influential Jewish-American sector of the Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history."  Their economic policies are anything but conservative, and they've been a major impetus behind the globalization of the world economy.

So, TGace and others...if you accept their economic and global strategies, by all means vote for Bush.  If you favor containment of rogue states via the old method, with increased use of police action in rounding up terrorists and use of an international forum for taking them on, then Kerry might be the route to go.

I do NOT think, however, that we can forcefully effect a Neocon notion of a "New World Order."  If we attempt it, we'll surely bankrupt the country.  It looks like we're wll on our way as it is.

A good write-up on neo-conservatism.

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Neo-conservatives


Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 6, 2004)

Concerning President Bush's Service Record.

This article gets most of the facts in evidence straight .... and tells us what facts are missing, for the most part. They still don't mention the physical requirements prior to his 27th birthday, but it's a start.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5922174/



> Bush's National Guard file incomplete
> Documents to explain his gaps in service are missing
> 
> The Associated Press
> ...


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 9, 2004)

I'm not sure if this should be posted here .... but, yet another attack on War Service ... 

The man is basing his entire campaign on his so-called heroics on that river...

It is time that America takes a closer look at what really happened.

http://www.rowboatvets.com


----------



## deadhand31 (Sep 10, 2004)

One thing I wonder about Kerry... in the 70s, he said on meet the press that he helped burn down village, didn't bother to stop tortures, and watched as limbs were hacked off. One question I have for Kerry, why did he do these things? Why did he burn down villages? He said that he did so himself. Here are his exact words:

"They told the stories [that] at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."

There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 caliber machine guns... I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages."


Now, one thing I wonder, why did he do these things? Why hasn't he publicly come out recently, and defended his actions? Was he just "following orders", a tactic that was ruled inadmissable for defense by the Nuremberg trials? I would just like to hear someone defend Kerry's atrocities.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 10, 2004)

Well, that was disingenuous.

What he actually said was that, as a soldier in Vietnam, he felt he had some moral responsibility for the deaths of some 3 million Vietnamese. You know--moral responsibility? Ring any bells?

What he also said, in the same interviews, was that he sympathized with the kinds of soldiers he'd been, and blamed the generals and politicians who sent them out to kill and die on false pretenses. You know--kinda like when the President ignores competent advice, as Johnson did, trumps up "facts, as Johnson did, throws troops to the wolves, as Johnson did, pushes pointless bombing campaigns, as Johnson did. Or when a succeeding President ups the ante on all this evil crap, as Nixon did. 

I am surprised by your lack of sympathy and support for an American soldier, who whatever his flaws did not stay home in a safe ANG job or with a college deferment, as a lot of politicians did. Fortunately, we do not have such politicians running the country now, let alone politicians who would go and  send people off to fight and die in the kinds of wars they carefully avoided,  based on trumped-up "facts," like Johnson, and...

Hey, wait a minute. I forgot.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 10, 2004)

deadhand31 said:
			
		

> Now, one thing I wonder, why did he do these things? Why hasn't he publicly come out recently, and defended his actions? Was he just "following orders", a tactic that was ruled inadmissable for defense by the Nuremberg trials? I would just like to hear someone defend Kerry's atrocities.


How do you suppose that killing and maiming as an everyday occurrence, while attempting to function at your peak primal capabilities under the stresses of malnourishment and sleep deprivation might influence your moral judgement?  The lines between cilvilian and enemy are already blurry, as the enemy and civilian look to be the same.  You witness the gruesome death of all around you, your brothers being blown apart by gunfire and explosives.

Put yourself in those shoes.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 10, 2004)

*One thing I wonder about Kerry... in the 70s, he said on meet the press that he helped burn down village, didn't bother to stop tortures, and watched as limbs were hacked off. One question I have for Kerry, why did he do these things? Why did he burn down villages? He said that he did so himself. Here are his exact words:

"They told the stories [that] at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."

There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 caliber machine guns... I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages."


Now, one thing I wonder, why did he do these things? Why hasn't he publicly come out recently, and defended his actions? Was he just "following orders", a tactic that was ruled inadmissable for defense by the Nuremberg trials? I would just like to hear someone defend Kerry's atrocities.*


Kerry didn't say he watched as limbs were hacked off...leastwise not during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting.  He said he did those things you list in the last paragraph.  This was DOCTRINE.  He was ordered to do those things.  That was the crux of his speech.



Read the speech, deadhand.


Regards,

Steve


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 10, 2004)

At the risk of mentioning little things like, "morality," and "Christianity," it may be worth remarking that nobody's ever said that decent behaviour was easy.

They said that it was right, and essential to one's spirit.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 10, 2004)

You know deadhead ... oops, I mean deadhand ... if you bothered to put any effort into the truth, it would be refreshing. Here, let me help. This is the the relevant part of the quote. You can find the entire transcript here;
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082204F.shtml



> *WINTER SOLDIER INVESTIGATION*
> I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.
> 
> It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.
> ...


This quote, incidently is from the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, it was not from 'MEET THE PRESS.
Now ... let's pay attention to this first paragraph ... OK ... try not to get glazed over by that Sean Hannity track on your IPOD.



> I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation *at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed* in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.


So, first, Kerry is reporting on what he heard from 150 honorably discharged, highly decorated veterans. He is not reporting first hand experiences.

OK ... now, onto the second paragraph. You see, this is a continuation of Mr. Kerry's thoughts; I'll change to bold face the stuff to pay particular attention too.



> It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in *Vietnam*, but they did. *They relived the absolute horror of what this country*, in a sense, *made them do.*


Here, Mr. Kerry is telling the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations that 150 honorably discharged soldiers felt they were directed (ordered) to take actions in Vietnam.

You still with me? OK... stop fantasizing about Ann Coulter ... and lets take a look at that third paragraph.



> *They* told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.


OK ... so, here is the damning stuff. Again, this is from the SENATE, and not MEET THE PRESS (FYI - they are two different things. The Senate is the most powerful legislative body in the world (maybe the 2nd most powerful) - Meet the Press is a TV Show --- you know, like 'The X Files').

I highlighted the first word of this paragraph. This word, is a plural pronoun. All pronouns in the English language need to have an 'anticedent' that will tell us exactly what the pronoun is referring to; in this case, you need to look two paragraphs earlier to understand that Mr. Kerry was referring to the *150 honorably discharged soldiers*.

Now, pay attention ... because here is where the truth really starts to become blinding obvious, even to ditto heads.

You see, John Kerry did appear on Meet the Press (You know, the TV Show kinda like STAR TREK) and here is what he said there.







> Audiotape, April 18, 1971):MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now, deadwrong ... oops, deadhand, in this paragraph, you see a different kind of pronoun. This is the first person singular pronoun; " I ". Here, Mr. Kerry makes several claims about what he did. Let's enumerate them:

1 - shootings in free fire zones.
2 - harrassment and interdiction fire
3 - search and destroy missions
4 - burning of villages

Now, look closely ... nowhere did Mr. Kerry state that he took part in ... how did you put it ...



			
				deadhand31 said:
			
		

> raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages


But oddly, in his Meet the Press interview .. he did answer your questions. Let's review your questions, and then check what Mr. Kerry said that answered those questions.



			
				deadhand31 said:
			
		

> One question I have for Kerry, why did he do these things? Why did he burn down villages?





			
				Mr. Kerry Meet the Press 1971 said:
			
		

> All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and *all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down.* And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.


Now ... this is a pretty sarcastic post. But, every time I turn around, you seem to be posting something that has no truth in it whatsoever. And you get snotty when we say stop listening to talk radio. In less than 2 minutes on Google, you could have found this stuff, and answered your own questions. Instead, you want to spread the mis-information as widely as possible. 

You just can't combine two different quotes, from two different interviews into one thought. Plain and simple that is lying. Of course, if you are auditioning for a job with FOX, you're doing a great job.


----------



## deadhand31 (Sep 11, 2004)

Umm, those aren't two different interviews. They were from the same interview, the same show, the same date. But I just want a good yes or no answer here: Did he or did he not do these things:

1 - shootings in free fire zones.
2 - harrassment and interdiction fire
3 - search and destroy missions
4 - burning of villages

And if he did, and he thought they were so wrong, why did he do them?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 11, 2004)

deadhand31 said:
			
		

> Umm, *those aren't two different interviews. They were from the same interview,* the same show, the same date. But I just want a good yes or no answer here: Did he or did he not do these things:
> 
> 1 - shootings in free fire zones.
> 2 - harrassment and interdiction fire
> ...


Did you read the transcripts? I posted them for you to use. I cited the sources. They ARE different statements, from different dates.

Meet the Press interview = April 18, 1971
Senate Foreign Relations statement = April 22, 1971
He did tell you why ... Here ... I'll post it again. Pay special attention to the parts in the *bold font. *(I will also point out that you asked for a yes or no answer, but then asked for *why*).



			
				Mr. Kerry on Meet the Press said:
			
		

> SEN. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, *which we were granted and ordered to use*, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of *written established policy by the government of the United States* from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.


Please, eat your Wheaties.

But let's take a closer look at your earlier post:


			
				deadhand31 said:
			
		

> Here are his exact words:
> "They told the stories [that] at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan.


So, are you asking about what Mr. Kerry did .. or what he said in the 'Winter Soldiers' statement? Now, are you going to apologize for lying about what you claimed Mr. Kerry did in war?

Now, I want a simple yes or now answer:
Did George Bush abandon his million dollar flight training while serving in the Texas Air National Guard?


----------



## deadhand31 (Sep 11, 2004)

I will admit, I misread the source, and the first paragraph was not in the same interview. 

However, even if he burned villages down with permission, it's HIS FAULT. "Just following orders" is the way out for cowards and spineless jellyfish. The nazis had permission from their government to gas jews. However, I will condemn any nazi that herded the jews into the gas chamber, and any nazi that threw the zyklon-b into the gas chamber. They are spineless cowards who deserve to be condemned. Consequently, I will condemn any veteran that intentionally burned down a village, and did any of the atrocities that Kerry described. 

As for Bush abandoning his training...  let's set up a scenario...

A company in the 1970s pays for a guy to learn the COBOL programming langauge. They invest time and money in him to learn COBOL. So he becomes a COBOL wizard. However, later on, they move away from COBOL, and he decides not maintain his COBOL certification, since he's not going to be using COBOL in the future anyway. 

If you think that man abandoned his company's investment in him, then by that definition, it would be abandonment. However, if you think that the guy really couldn't have made use of it, and it's not his fault that COBOL went obselete, then you really can't blame Bush.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 11, 2004)

deadhand31 said:
			
		

> I will admit, I misread the source, and the first paragraph was not in the same interview.
> 
> However, even if he burned villages down with permission, it's HIS FAULT. "Just following orders" is the way out for cowards and spineless jellyfish. The nazis had permission from their government to gas jews. However, I will condemn any nazi that herded the jews into the gas chamber, and any nazi that threw the zyklon-b into the gas chamber. They are spineless cowards who deserve to be condemned. Consequently, I will condemn any veteran that intentionally burned down a village, and did any of the atrocities that Kerry described.
> 
> ...


Nothing here surprises me ... 

You were wrong about the quotes. And a rabid Bush support is angry about Kerry's actions. And what has been your stance on Donald Rumsfeld and Abu Ghraib?

And then, you demand a 'Yes' or 'No' answer from me ... but then want to play a scenario when the same is asked of you.

Lt. Bush did not just abandon his post, he did so when such training was required. The Texas Air National Guard was placed on alert for possible sneak attacks while Bush was dodging his duty. According to your scenario .... COBOL was still very much in demand when Bush was missing. Lt. Bush also agreed to perform his duties for 6 years, but when he got tired of it, he just left.

Your problem is that you can not engage your brain. You want to blindly follow Bush because Sean Hannity tells you to (how do you think I know why your quotes were wrong). 

Face it .. you are wrong.

You know, I don't have problem with people who are conservative, or even Republican, when that take that position based on their principles. My best friend has a Bush Cheney sticker on the back of his jeep. But you, sound just like talk radio. .... just keep screaming the lies long enough and maybe someone will believe  you.

Good Grief


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 12, 2004)

*However, even if he burned villages down with permission, it's HIS FAULT. "Just following orders" is the way out for cowards and spineless jellyfish.* 

Then the Swift Boat Veterans for truth are indeed cowards and spineless jellyfish (the latter of which is a redundancy), and Kerry's atonement by maligning such practices is to be commended, correct?

We must recognize that sanctioned village burning is everyone's fault throughout the entire chain of command.  Those that issue the illegal order are to blame as well as the ones torching it.  Note that NOBODY was ever held responsible for burning people's homes during the Viet Nam war.

*Consequently, I will condemn any veteran that intentionally burned down a village, and did any of the atrocities that Kerry described. * 

Get hot on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, then.  They did it.

Burning villages was routine.  Bombing them, shelling them, and napalming them was as well. Here's more testimony before Congress from a Marine officer who served in Viet Nam (remember Kerry wasn't the only one):

"One happened on my mother&#8217;s birthday, October 27, 1966, northwest of the Chu Lai perimeter, at a village called Duc Pho. It was a large village complex. A sniper killed a staff sergeant, so the skipper pulled us back and then ordered nape [Napalm] on the village itself. &#8220;Just napalm the hell out of it.&#8221; When we went in later, after the fires burned down, there were many, many bodies of old women and men. But I think the worst was thirty dead children who had been laid out for us to see by the survivors, who got the hell out of there before we got in. They laid these children out for us to see in one courtyard, and from being completely &#8212; just their bodies mutilated, to some of these kids looking like they&#8217;d just been sunburned, all of them were dead, all of them were very young &#8212; boys and girls both. 

Another time we destroyed two entire villages &#8212; which was a month earlier than that. One of our old men, a man who had been around for six months, got hit by a sniper. The battalion went into a frenzy and destroyed these two villages in the Pineapple Forest, which was southwest of Tam Ky about ten miles. Everything living died. It was just &#8212; it was mad, it was insane. Everything died and burned, and there was nothing left, nothing left of those two villages.

The general trend in Vietnam at that time that I was there, for the entire year, if you received incoming rounds, sniper rounds from a village, one or two or three, you called in artillery strikes on that village, you napalmed that village; whether it was artillery or air, whichever was the closest. And this was indiscriminate and this was usual."

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/vietnam-nviuswcv-19701201.html


The quote from Viet Nam goes thus:  "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."


Regards,


Steve


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 12, 2004)

Good to know that "deadhand," agrees that we should be prosecuting any U.S. soldier, as well as their commanders, who engage in war crimes. Good to know, too, that he feels they bear the moral responsibility for what they've done--which is what John Kerry said, explicitly. 

I would very much like to read his explanation of why this should NOT apply to, say, Gen. William Westmoreland, folks like Robert MacNamara and Henry Kissinger, to say nothing of the soldiers and commanders responsible for events such as shooting down an Iranian airliner for no good reason, blowing up a baby girl in Libya, strafing a wedding in Iraq, and torturing prisoners.

I'd also be interested to read the moral justification for trashing the Constitution and habeas corpus in assorted "detention camps." Especially with the kids we've been holding in them.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 12, 2004)

deadhand31 said:
			
		

> However, later on, they move away from COBOL, and he decides not maintain his COBOL certification, since he's not going to be using COBOL in the future anyway.


 The biggest flaw in this particularly childish scenario is that there is no Universal Code of Software Justice that claims that you must obey the orders of your corporate higher-ups or you are in Dereliction of Duty, a *criminal offense*.

 But, go on comparing apples and oranges, if it makes you feel better -- it seems to be the basis for your party's desperate attempts to distract the public from the flaws, failures, and criminal acts of its candidates.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 17, 2004)

This just in!


> We will soon know more about the president's history with the Air National Guard. A federal judge has ordered the Pentagon to release some of his files on Monday. The move comes in the middle of the controversy over a "60 Minutes" story on the same topic.


We shall have more answers soon....


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 17, 2004)

Gee Flatlander ... how can we be learning more about this now? How can a judge order more items released? I thought the President released all these documents before .... Now let's see ... where might I have heard that ... 

Oh, Yeah ... from the 'So Called Liberal Media"

MEET THE PRESS WITH TIM RUSSERT

INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH - THE OVAL OFFICE, FEBRUARY 7, 2004

BROADCAST ON NBCS MEET THE PRESS

SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2004 - PLEASE CREDIT ANY EXCERPTS TO NBCS MEET THE PRESS




> *Russert:*  When allegations were made about John McCain or Wesley Clark on their military records, they opened up their entire files.  Would you agree to do that?
> 
> *President Bush:*  Yeah.  Listen, these files  I mean, people have been looking for these files for a long period of time, trust me, and starting in the 1994 campaign for governor.  And I can assure you in the year 2000 people were looking for those files as well.  Probably you were.  And  absolutely.  I mean, I 
> 
> ...


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 17, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> This just in!
> 
> We shall have more answers soon....


Also, did you see the news about Congressman Bush writing letters to the Military as his son was first getting into the Texas Air National Guard? 

I have to imagine that this batch of documents was released to pre-empt the judges ruling. And Rove is really good at releasing these documents on Friday nights, and Holiday weekends. 

We'll see how it plays out.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 17, 2004)

Mike?  It kinda reads like you're yelling at me.  Don't shoot the messenger.  I'm just sharing what I find that might be relevant to the topic.  Any position that I have on either candidate is a moot point.  I don't get to vote (against Bush).


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 17, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> Mike? It kinda reads like you're yelling at me. Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just sharing what I find that might be relevant to the topic. Any position that I have on either candidate is a moot point. I don't get to vote (against Bush).


No, of course I'm not yelling at you.  It was meant to sound sarcastic, because, as YOU know (and I know that you know), Bush had promised to release all his military records .... *and *.... Kerry is getting attacked about his military records. Isn't this the point where Robert usually steps in, and reminds us that one of the two got shot at with real bullets in Indo-China 

Although I am frustrated in general at those who support Bush despite these obvious diversions. And I am frustrated at those who are raising a stink about the CBS news story (alleged forgeries), but not calling Russert on the fact that these documents weren't released. So, that is perhaps why the tone seems negative. 

Oh, Well.

No harm meant, certainly not at you. Sorry.

Mike


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 17, 2004)

Cool.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 18, 2004)

Hey, let's try this aspect of What We Know For Sure:

1960s: John Kerry; wealthy kid, went to college, went to Vietnam.
          Geo. Bush: extremely wealthy kid, went to Yale, went to ANG. Partied.

1970s: John Kerry; came home, joined VVAW, became county prosecutor.
           Geo. Bush: attended Harvard Business School, started 3 failed 
           businesses. Partied.

1980s: John Kerry; elected Lieutenant Governor. remarried. El. Senator.
           Geo. Bush: borrowed money from friends of dad and granddad, 
           invested  the 600 K in deal to buy texas rangers; made 14.2 million. 
           DUI arrest. Widespread rumors of drug use. Conversion experience,
           1987.

1990s:  John Kerry: US Senator. Raised daughters with wealthy wife.
           Geo. Bush: Elected Governor of Texas.

2000s: John Kerry; ran for Prez, 2004.
           Geo Bush: elected President, Electoral College majority, popular
            minority. Fishy Court decision decides election. Nation attacked. 
            Invasion of Afghanistan. Invasion of Iraq. Trillion-dollar tax cut for 
           wealthiest Americans. National debt goes from surplus to 500 
           billion deficit.

So before you start ranting--which item on the list is wrong?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 19, 2004)

And this just in. Took long enough.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/18/kerry.medals.ap/index.html



> *Navy: Kerry medals approved properly*
> *WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Navy's chief investigator concluded Friday that procedures were followed properly in the approval of Sen. John Kerry's Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals, according to an internal Navy memo.*
> 
> Vice Adm. R.A. Route, the Navy inspector general, conducted the review of Kerry's Vietnam-ear military service awards at the request of Judicial Watch, a public interest group. The group has also asked for the release of additional records documenting the Democratic presidential candidate's military service.
> ...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 19, 2004)

As for "Judicial Watch," I just got this from disinfopedia.com--which looks like a pretty good resource. When you follow the money on these guys, guess where it comes from...

"In 2002, Judicial Watch received $1.1 million from The Cathage Foundation and a further $400,000 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation. The year before the Scaife Foundation had given $1.35 million and Carthage $500,000. 

In all, between 1997 and 2002 Judicial Watch received $7,069,500 (unadjusted for inflation) in 19 grants from a handful of foundations...The bulk of this funding came from just three foundations  the Sarah Scaife Foundation, The Carthage Foundation and the John M. Olin Foundation, Inc." 

Scaife...Scaife...now where have I run into that name before? Oh, yes....imagine my surprise. 

The great part is that the report won't even slow down the hue and cry. I particularly loved the assertion that with a Republican President, Congress, and Senate there was a political downside to turning out an honest report that exposed some lie in John Kerry's war record...beautiful, and exactly the sort of crap these clowns have been pulling all along. 

Even better is the claim--one echoed by Hizzoner--to be jes' plain folks, taking on Big Government and Evil Corporations on behalf of the Little Guy, that you see running throughout these groups. Of course these are extremely well-funded interest groups with serious corporate sponsorship, led by people who wouldn't piss on a working man if he were on fire. But then, the President himself is a child of an extraordinarily wealthy and powerful family that got him into Yale through a "legacy" program (translation--affirmative action for rich white guys; young George didn't have the grades or the record...hey, that sounds familiar somehow) and then went on to Harvard B-school, and subsequently managed to convince a lotta voters that he was just down-home working folks. 

Oh well. Won't matter. It'd be nice if at least folks said something like, "Well, Bush is a rich, kinda cheesy guy who may be really screwing us up, but I think he's right about the wars and I just don't like Kerry." I guess, though, that the hoorawing is so thick that reality just can't be allowed to interfere in even the tiniest way.


*	Larry Klayman, Chairman and General Counsel


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 19, 2004)

You know, I, too, took a look at the Judicial Watch web site. I found it very interesting because of the juxtaposition of these two observations:

1) "As a *non-partisan*, non-profit foundation ... "

2 a) Number of times Kerry mentioned on the 'Home Page' = 12
2 b) Number of times Clinton mentioned on the 'Home Page' = 2
2 c) Number of times Bush is mentioned on the 'Home Page' = 0

14 mentions of the Democrats ... 0 mentions of the Current Administration


What is even more fun is looking at the Judicial Watch Cases. The dates and names all look very familiar. They mostly seem to be from the Clinton administration.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 25, 2004)

When was that interview with Little Russ that the President said that he would release *ALL* of his national guard records .... and that they were *ALL* released 4 years ago ????


But today ... we find this ...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002045827_cdig25.html



> WASHINGTON  The Pentagon released 10 pages of records from President Bush's Vietnam-era service in the Texas Air National Guard late yesterday, but the files shed no new light on his military career.
> 
> 
> The records include several that had been released previously and others that are administrative files or cover letters to other previously released documents.
> ...


----------



## Tkang_TKD (Sep 27, 2004)

And the hits just keep on coming....Another Swift Boat Liar bites the dust:

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/109611388371980.xml

How come we can find half a dozen guys to lie about Senator Kerry's war record, but we can't find one person to verify they saw President Bush in Alabama?  I think at one point the author of Doonsberry even offered up 10 grand for anyone with verifiable proof that they served with the President in the Alabama guard.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 6, 2007)

Sam Fox, a Texan, donated $50,000.00 to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Seems to me, the President had assured us that he had no connection with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

During the Easter Break, President "No connections" appointed Mr. Fox to a U.S. Ambassadorship; bypassing the 'Advice and Consent of the Senate, as prescribed in the United States Constitution. 

Under current law, President Bush has the authority to make recess appointments. Although tradition has been that such appointments only occur when the Senate had been in recess for more than 10 days. Further, such recess appointments are not supposed to receive a salary drawn from the United States Treasury. (Ambassadors earn between $145,000 and $154,000 +/- annually). The Department of State has not indicated that it will follow these rules for Abassador Swift Boat Fox.


----------



## crushing (Apr 6, 2007)

Are you sure you don't have your own connections to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?  Someone you know may have donated.

I contribute to some organizations.  Does that mean that everyone that knows me has connections to those same organizations?


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 7, 2007)

crushing said:


> Are you sure you don't have your own connections to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? Someone you know may have donated.
> 
> I contribute to some organizations. Does that mean that everyone that knows me has connections to those same organizations?


 
The position you posit here is not the argument being made.

Mr. Fox is not accused of 'knowing' someone who contributed to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Mr. Fox donated $50,000.00 to the organization that published lies about the Presidential Candidate that opposed President Bush's re-election.

And in return for that little investment, he gets an Ambassadorship; through a recess appointment, because he would not muster the Constitutionally required 'Advice and Consent' of the United States Senate.


----------



## crushing (Apr 7, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Sam Fox, a Texan, donated $50,000.00 to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
> 
> Seems to me, the President had assured us that *he *had no connection with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.


 
I thought the ambiguous 'he' referred to the President.  Based on your most recent comment I can only assume you meant Mr. Fox.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 7, 2007)

crushing said:


> I thought the ambiguous 'he' referred to the President. Based on your most recent comment I can only assume you meant Mr. Fox.


 
You are correct ... in that post, I was referring to the President. 

President Bush assured us that he (the President) had no ties to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. He does now, doesn't he? 

Nice little reward for a fellow Texan paying for ad hominem attacks against your campaign competitor, eh?


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Apr 7, 2007)

Put a fork in this thread, its done.


----------

