Critical "Swift Boat Veteran" Retracts Charges Against Kerry

[michaeledward]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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"

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]

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

Did you happen to read it?

 

[michaeledward]

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]

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]

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:

•Why did Bush, described by some of his fellow officers as a talented and enthusiastic pilot, stop flying fighter jets in the spring of 1972 and fail to take an annual physical exam required of all pilots?

•What explains the apparent gap in the president's Guard service in 1972-73, a period when commanders in Texas and Alabama say they never saw him report for duty and records show no pay to Bush when he was supposed to be on duty in Alabama?

•Did Bush receive preferential treatment in getting into the Guard and securing a coveted pilot slot despite poor qualifying scores and arrests, but no convictions, for stealing a Christmas wreath and rowdiness at a football game during his college years?

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

 

[D_Brady]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[michaeledward]

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.

1. Supported the war and served in Vietnam (John Kerry, John McCain)
2. 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)
3. Opposed the war and dedicated oneself to anti-war movement at some personal risk, including conscientious objection. (This position is not as dangerous as serving in a war, but it is nevertheless just as moral. The war was evil. Putting oneself at legal and physical risk as many did to try to end this evil strikes me as an unimpeachable moral position, though given America’s political culture, it would also be untenable for any contemporary presidential candidate to hold.)

Category B: Exhibiting the strength of one’s moral convictions after protecting one’s posterior

• Opposed the war, protected self, and then worked for anti-war movement (Bill Clinton)
  
  This position seems to me to be the minimum necessary to consider oneself a moral being. Risking one’s person for one’s principles is a lot to ask for most of us, but the least one could ask is that if we identify an evil that is literally killing people, our peers included, one lifts a proverbial finger to stop it, say, by working for the presidential candidacies of Robert Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy or George McGovern.

Category C: Having no convictions to protect save self-protection

• Opposed the war, protected self, let others worry about it (Howard Dean, Joe Lieberman)
  
  This is the position of those who merely opted out of the question, accepted their college deferments and went on with their lives and did not feel any sense of responsibility for their peers and countrymen.

Category D: Contradicting one’s alleged convictions in the service of protecting one’s posterior

• Supported the war, preferred to let others fight and die for it (George W. Bush, Dick Cheney)
  
  This seems to me to be the least defensible position imaginable. Bush and Cheney both used their privileged positions to protect themselves; Cheney says he did it because he had “other priorities.” Bush says he did it because he wanted to “better himself” by learning to fly planes. Whether he deserted his post or not—and I think he did-- it is incontrovertible that he wasted the government’s million dollar investment in his training by allowing his qualifications to lapse while he was still supposed to be on active duty. (And what if during this period, the Guard was actually needed, if say, Oklahoma had invaded Texas?)

 

[rmcrobertson]

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.