[typoon]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=39816

Or you can see it in quicktime here

Lewis Letson, lieutenant commander, medical center: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury."

Gunner's mate Van Odell: "John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star. I know. I was there. I saw what happened."

You can see the add from the link in the article.

[Gee-Man]

Originally posted by typoon:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=39816

Or you can see it in quicktime here

Lewis Letson, lieutenant commander, medical center: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury."

Gunner's mate Van Odell: "John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star. I know. I was there. I saw what happened."

You can see the add from the link in the article.

None of these men in the ad served on the same swift boat with John Kerry in Vietnam. Even the doctor who claimed to have treated Kerry wasn't the man who signed the medical forms.

Also, both the Bush administration and John McCain have already denounced this ad:

Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, said he had not seen the advertisement and tried to distance the president from it.

"The Bush-Cheney campaign has never and will never question John Kerry's service during Vietnam," Mr. Schmidt said. "The election will not be about the past, it will be about the future."

Republican Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry (news - web sites)'s military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.

Nothing to see here, move along...

[Taliesin]

I really don't care who will be president after November, the differences between the two big parties are not that big considering the topics I care about, like the arabic US-neo-colonies and the support of Israel, but I must admit that the election-campaigns surrounding the president-elections are somewhat amusing:

The terror-alert based on old scripts and the announcement of the capture of an Al-Kaida-member during the democratic convention, and now this, that's really funny.

But I'm curious, aren't TV-ads not very expensive and practically not affordable for war-veterans without some very interested and financially capable power in the back?

President-elections so conveniently simulate a democracy, but rarely change anything. Aren't the big money-spenders financing both big parties, and aren't numerous lobbyists equipped with cash and job-offerings for the time after the political-life, hard at work in Washington, DC to ensure that the interests of their clients are protected.

For me it looks like the old saying "One (wo)man, one vote" should be changed to "One dollar, one vote".

All in all that is still way better than the dictatorships that the US installed and supported/supports throughout the middle-east, but not because of the simulated democracy, but because of the underground framework: The constitution with its rights and duties, and the independent judicial power, which allows to sue when these rights are limited or harmed, though it takes time and is not totally free from corruption and blackmailing.

Taliesin

[Dr.HermanG.]

Remember when CICs were actually honorable and served in battle? Now we have Clinton who ran away overseas to escape service, Bush, who sort of served in the National Guard, and Kerry who ran away when he got a hangnail and asked to be sent home.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

You know, it’d be easier to denounce ads like this when pulled on the left, if there was a little more consistency from the left in not pulling the same.

In a way I think it’s unfair to bring 30+ year old charges against someone, when it’s hard to prove or disprove anything so long ago, but it’s not as if the left hasn’t pulled the SAME thing on Bush with a vengeance.

I notice that rather than simply prove these people wrong, the attack is focused on their financers (which is a piddly drop in the bucket compared to the propaganda shitstorms financed by the likes of George Soros). Someone please show me where the NYT or anyone else has denounced anything or anyone simply because of funding by Soros or any other deep pocketed leftist.

Some of the tactics here are just shoddy- since when if someone has an injury in combat (or claims to) could they not have had more than one doctor that saw them? Kerry doesn’t directly say he wasn’t treated by the doctor in question, he merely pulls a fast one by saying another doctor signed the forms. Well duh. Obviously a doctor who didn’t believe he had substantial enough injuries to grant him a medal, wouldn’t sign any such forms!

The press goes apeshit for MONTHS over George W Bush’s whereabouts for a few months during his service in the Guard, but then casually dismisses the fact that an overwhelming majority of officers who served in the same region as Kerry (who of course would have known him) seem to think he was dishonorable.

Kerry declared himself a war criminal, yet WHERE is the mainstream press getting to the bottom of any of that? Has anyone even asked Kerry about that? Was he lying back then, or lying now?

The whole Kerry/Vietnam war issue just plain stinks to high Heaven. His position on it is utterly schitzo, like many things on the left. How he can even keep this nonsense about being a war hero alive is just amazing, since so many negatives seem to trump most of what he can count as positives.

Just look at the facts. When Kerry came back, he denounced the war, called his fellow servicemen (and himself) war criminals, tossed his medals (the ones he’s now supposedly so proud of), joined a movement proven to have not only been anti-war but pro Viet Cong- basically he washed his hands of the whole war and service that’s in question. That’s all fine and dandy, and one can respect of loathe him for it… if he would have held a CONSISTANT position.

But now flash-forward 30-some years and the schizophrenia takes over. We’re supposed to see Kerry’s service in something he A. loathed B. admits to taking part in war crimes during C. washed his hands of D. is not respected by others who served with him- we’re supposed to see all that as a POSITIVE. Now rather than war-criminal/accuser of others being war criminals/tosser of medals that were received under dubious circumstances/ anti-war protestor… we’re supposed to somehow arrive at "John Kerry=War Hero".


Hell, by these 'standards' maybe Lindy freakin’ England could well be the Democrat ‘War Hero’ candidate in 2034!

[voodoo]

Wow CRASH_HARDDRIVE, that was some speech.

I think if the accusations that are being made in the 'ad' have any merit the Bush campaign wouldn't have distanced themselves 100% from it. I've seen their ads and personal attacks aren't below them. Some are probably wondering if they financed this smearing ad indirectly, but I don't think that is an issue.

Since Bush and his campaign have distanced themselves completely from the ad in question, I sincerely doubt its authenticity. While 3 purple hearts and a bronze star a neat things to have when running for president it is hardly something that a rich brat from Mass. is thinking/caring about. He had no idea that he was to become a presidential candidate some 30 years later. Much like the current president of the U.S., Bush.

This is a pointless discussion and I'm sure whatever else you can say about Kerry, he earned his medals. IIRC someone wrote how hard it was to get a purple heart, and by his description it isn't. Jeez.

[Zimphire]

http://www.swiftvets.com/

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
http://www.swiftvets.com/

*points to original post*

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Since Bush and his campaign have distanced themselves completely from the ad in question, I sincerely doubt its authenticity.

LOL! That’s funny that now you’re selectively granting Bush authority on something when it suits you. Thanks for a good chuckle!

I give Bush a lot of credit for simply not getting involved. There’s no need for Bush to try and bash Kerry on his schitzo war record- just a good putrid whiff of the thing by anyone paying attention does that all on its own. Why should Bush stick his neck out when Kerry’s record stinks for itself?

Subsequently, has Kerry had the class to denounce shameless attacks on Bush’s service record? Oh, wait a minute… I seem to recall that Kerry’s actually spearheaded them.

Be honest. If a bunch of guardsmen who served with Bush denounced him, you'd be all over it, and Kerry (guaranteed) WOULD NOT have the class and restraint to resist joining in the 30+ year old allegation bashing. The media would also have an absolute feeding frenzy.

While 3 purple hearts and a bronze star a neat things to have when running for president it is hardly something that a rich brat from Mass. is thinking/caring about.

Really? I’m not so sure. Let’s see, rich brat from Massachusetts with the initials JFK, whose political career and icon status was helped greatly by a flashy combat lore crafted around service on a small, fast boat during a war… humm… that sounds miiiiiiiiiighy familiar to me! Dunno where I’ve heard the story before, but it’ll probably come to me!

Kerry’s whole war service just seems like its right out of a script, and I’ve heard he’s been quoted as saying he wanted to be President from an early time. At any rate, I don’t fault him for any actual service he may have done. Just that his own actions have so tainted his record, he’s an absolute boob to have made service a major issue just to get in a few cheap shots at Bush. Add to that, he doesn’t seem to have much else of a record of achieving anything else to run on either.

I'm sure whatever else you can say about Kerry, he earned his medals.

He also tossed them. (Oh wait, no, they were someone else’s. No wait, it was just the ribbons. No wait, now he’s suddenly proud of them, ribbons and all, and proud of his war-criminal 4 month service that goes with them. No wait…)

I could care freakin’ less about Kerry’s medals when there’s just so much schitzo BS surrounding them.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Subsequently, has Kerry had the class to denounce shameless attacks on Bush’s service record? Oh, wait a minute… I seem to recall that Kerry’s actually spearheaded them.

Be honest. If a bunch of guardsmen who served with Bush denounced him, you'd be all over it, and Kerry (guaranteed) WOULD NOT have the class and restraint to resist joining in the 30+ year old allegation bashing. The media would also have an absolute feeding frenzy.

You seem to recall incorrectly. He spearheaded them? Either you know that's untrue, or you just live in a fantasy world. Bush got a complete free pass on questions about his record in 2000, after Clinton and Quayle had been pilloried by the media on what they did, and only after Michael Moore brought it up, and then someone asked Wes Clark about it in a primary debate, did it become an issue. Terry McCaullife said some pretty tough things, and so did Moore, but not Kerry.

Here's the only quote from Kerry that I could find about it:

BLITZER: Jennifer Coggiola, thanks very much for that report. Asked about the controversy over President Bush's military service record, Democratic front-runner John Kerry today distanced himself from some of the controversial comments.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KERRY: I've not suggested to any of them that they do so. And I spoke out against the use of the word deserter, which I thought was inappropriate, wrong, over the top.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

In any case, Bush supporters have a track record of questioning military service, as John McCain points out above.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Here's the only quote from Kerry that I could find about it

Has ANOTHER good laugh!

Kerry Demands Bush prove Guard Service

[BRussell]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Has ANOTHER good laugh!

Kerry Demands Bush prove Guard Service

So that's him "spearheading it," as you called it? The issue had been in the news for 4 months before that, your article says he deflected most questions about it during the primaries, and finally when "Conservative critics have questioned whether Kerry deserved his three Purple Hearts for battle wounds," and the Bush campaign attacked him for protesting Vietnam, he said "If George Bush wants to ask me questions about that through his surrogates, he owes America an explanation about whether or not he showed up for duty in the National Guard. Prove it. That's what we ought to have," Kerry told NBC News in an interview. "I'm not going to stand around and let them play games." Sounds to me like he was responding rather than spearheading.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
LOL! That’s funny that now you’re selectively granting Bush authority on something when it suits you. Thanks for a good chuckle!

I give Bush a lot of credit for simply not getting involved. There’s no need for Bush to try and bash Kerry on his schitzo war record- just a good putrid whiff of the thing by anyone paying attention does that all on its own. Why should Bush stick his neck out when Kerry’s record stinks for itself?

Subsequently, has Kerry had the class to denounce shameless attacks on Bush’s service record? Oh, wait a minute… I seem to recall that Kerry’s actually spearheaded them.

Be honest. If a bunch of guardsmen who served with Bush denounced him, you'd be all over it, and Kerry (guaranteed) WOULD NOT have the class and restraint to resist joining in the 30+ year old allegation bashing. The media would also have an absolute feeding frenzy.

I fail to see how anyone can get all wound up about incredibly trivial things like this. I'd like to clear up a few misconceptions: One is that I actually care either way which presidential candidate in the U.S. wins other than in a mildly amused way - I'm sure the universe can deal with another Bush term if it comes to that, but in the end of the day we're talking about *your* president not mine. You can perhaps appreciate how little I really care, no?

Another misconception is that you think I'm "selectively granting Bush authority on something when it suits [me]", when I'm doing no such thing. I'm just looking at this from a campaign perspective and if there was *any* merit to these seemingly made up claims on Kerry's war record the smart thing to do for the Bush campaign would have been to say something like "we don't want to comment on such rumors" or something in that direction. Instead they opt for "not doubting sen. Kerry's war record" at all. I'm simply giving the Bush campaign the credit I think they deserve, the campaign is no doubt headed by very smart and quick witted people who recognize when there is a chink in the opponent's armor. Judging *solely* by that - and I think it really shows the truth of the matter - it seems that the accusations made in that ad against sen. Kerry's war record are false. Then there are other evidence that the accusations are false, but that one sufficed for me anyway. Remember I'm just a spectator far away. Thankfully.

As for you daring me to be honest about my reactions if guardsmen had denounced Bush's service.. it's a bit trickier I have to admit because Bush has not AFAIK made all his military records public. It would help a lot if that were the case. Now no man has denounced Bush's military service and in fact in some cases it has been difficult to find anyone who in fact remembers him at all! Frankly it would depend completely on the credibility of the accusers whether I'd even give the matter a second thought, no matter what I feel about Bush. I haven't got the inclination to take part of a something that could well be built on a lie. Not even Bush deserves that IMO. He could lie less to the public though, also IMO. That is another topic. Bottom line, it would depend completely on the legitimacy of Bush's hypothetical accusers. I can't speak for Kerry or anyone else, naturally.

Really? I’m not so sure. Let’s see, rich brat from Massachusetts with the initials JFK, whose political career and icon status was helped greatly by a flashy combat lore crafted around service on a small, fast boat during a war… humm… that sounds miiiiiiiiiighy familiar to me! Dunno where I’ve heard the story before, but it’ll probably come to me!

Kerry’s whole war service just seems like its right out of a script, and I’ve heard he’s been quoted as saying he wanted to be President from an early time. At any rate, I don’t fault him for any actual service he may have done. Just that his own actions have so tainted his record, he’s an absolute boob to have made service a major issue just to get in a few cheap shots at Bush. Add to that, he doesn’t seem to have much else of a record of achieving anything else to run on either.

I'll grant you that I can only guess whether sen. Kerry had presidential aspirations at an early age, but it would be surprising - to me anyway. He doesn't seem like the type even though he is of the right blue blood families of the U.S.A. I suppose for people like him it is always a possibility, rarely are white trash like Clinton and Nixon allowed to become presidents although they usually make the most entertaining ones IMO.
Whatever his plans were they don't change the fact that he got the medals, the merits and the reputation he has from his service in Vietnam. The credibility of the accusers in the ad is questionable so far and it is further underscored by the Bush campaign's reluctancy to touch it. If the people portrayed in the video are in fact telling the God honest truth then you can chalk me up as one surprised European!

He also tossed them. (Oh wait, no, they were someone else’s. No wait, it was just the ribbons. No wait, now he’s suddenly proud of them, ribbons and all, and proud of his war-criminal 4 month service that goes with them. No wait…)

I could care freakin’ less about Kerry’s medals when there’s just so much schitzo BS surrounding them.

The medal/ribbon story was surely confusing and embarrassing - when you think about it not quite something an aspiring presidential candidate would do eh? Apparently he threw *his* ribbons but someone *else's* medallions (because those people couldn't attend but wanted their medallions thrown anyway). PR blunders like that seem to follow sen. Kerry's history but at the time nobody was looking at him, nor was he seeking it. His story as a Vietnam veteran is not unique. He enlists to defend his country, and his people's way of life (for it was a war against the communist domino effect in Asia - and quite possibly the entire world remember) and he came back from it knowing what a God awful mess it actually was and pointless to boot. One man goes to war another comes back.
I don't see any discrepancy or problem with that. In my experience you have to be able to change your mind and your opinion when you realize you were wrong. That simple thing can be difficult for many especially when many people's eyes are upon you. I digress, point is that sen. Kerry's history is certainly strange but by no means unique. I don't think he did anything worse than others in that war and after he returned he showed remarkable character. I don't blame him or his past, nor do I blame Bush or his past. Again the Bush campaign gets it right: "The election will not be about the past, it will be about the future."

I agree. It will, especially as this little jab will turn out to be backed by thin air and lies as I expect it to be.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by BRussell:
So that's him "spearheading it," as you called it? The issue had been in the news for 4 months before that, your article says he deflected most questions about it during the primaries, and finally when "Conservative critics have questioned whether Kerry deserved his three Purple Hearts for battle wounds," and the Bush campaign attacked him for protesting Vietnam, he said "If George Bush wants to ask me questions about that through his surrogates, he owes America an explanation about whether or not he showed up for duty in the National Guard. Prove it. That's what we ought to have," Kerry told NBC News in an interview. "I'm not going to stand around and let them play games." Sounds to me like he was responding rather than spearheading.

Notice that Bush’s campaign only questioned Kerry’s war protest history (which includes allegations against his fellow servicemen, NOT just protesting the war itself), as well as his own admission of being a war criminal, joining groups that supported the Viet Cong- but of course Bush can’t question him on any of that. Notice that these weren’t direct ‘attacks’ on Kerry’s SERVICE. You can’t seem to fathom the difference.

Kerry then takes a total cheap-shot against Bush’s service record that even attempts to frame it as though Bush was in question of showing up AT ALL for duty with the National Guard, when the man unquestionably served over two years! I don’t doubt for a second that Kerry cares whether any dunderhead who doesn’t know the minutia of the actual issue would be confused by his attack into thinking that there’s a question over Bush’s entire service record. Such was probably his goal. (Notice even the type of slanted headline his comments generated.)

Now of course, you’re pulling a typical smokescreen of semantics over whether or not he ‘spearheaded’ a Bush service-record attack or not rather than address the actual issue.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by voodoo:
[B]I fail to see how anyone can get all wound up about incredibly trivial things like this. I'd like to clear up a few misconceptions: One is that I actually care either way which presidential candidate in the U.S. wins other than in a mildly amused way

Heh. You sure expend an AWFUL lot of typing about something you don't care much about!

The medal/ribbon story was surely confusing and embarrassing - when you think about it not quite something an aspiring presidential candidate would do eh? Apparently he threw *his* ribbons but someone *else's* medallions (because those people couldn't attend but wanted their medallions thrown anyway). PR blunders like that seem to follow sen. Kerry's history but at the time nobody was looking at him, nor was he seeking it.

I think it's just part and parcel of Kerry's finger to the wind, flip/flop nature. When the war and service in the war were unpopular, Kerry was against it, hated that he was involved in it, loathed and made accusations against his fellow soldiers, declared them and himself war criminals, and tossed the symbols and decorations he received (such were good enough to get him out of the war, but not good enough to keep).

Now when service IS an issue, and it IS popular to have served, he's the 'gung-ho' war hero, proud of his medals, and how dare anyone question his anti-war actions, or even ask him about self-confessed war crimes. Why is it so unbelievable that an admitted war criminal would have other people who knew him come forward and confirm that he was indeed a F-up? He declared himself one in the 70’s.

Oh wait. He was just lying about all that back then. That was just the 'in' thing to do. Now it's hip NOT to be a tell-all war criminal, so he suddenly isn't one. At least that's the story for now.

If service became unpopular again, I've little doubt Kerry will change his tune YET again, and all the stories will change too.

[UNTeMac]

As trivial as this issue is when it comes to the next 4 years of our country...the sad thing is, people will believe it. It's as old as politics. Get everyone looking over here, and they can't see through it all. Bush is distancing himself from it because he can have his cake and eat it too. Attack Kerry, not seem like a pit-bull. Move-on.org's relationship to the Kerry campaign is much the same.

The old black & white argument just gets tiring. There is no one thing to define either side so stop generalizing (crash).

[voodoo]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Heh. You sure expend an AWFUL lot of typing about something you don't care much about!

I'm a politically minded person.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Notice that Bush’s campaign only questioned Kerry’s war protest history (which includes allegations against his fellow servicemen, NOT just protesting the war itself), as well as his own admission of being a war criminal, joining groups that supported the Viet Cong- but of course Bush can’t question him on any of that. Notice that these weren’t direct ‘attacks’ on Kerry’s SERVICE. You can’t seem to fathom the difference.

Kerry then takes a total cheap-shot against Bush’s service record that even attempts to frame it as though Bush was in question of showing up AT ALL for duty with the National Guard, when the man unquestionably served over two years! I don’t doubt for a second that Kerry cares whether any dunderhead who doesn’t know the minutia of the actual issue would be confused by his attack into thinking that there’s a question over Bush’s entire service record. Such was probably his goal. (Notice even the type of slanted headline his comments generated.)

Now of course, you’re pulling a typical smokescreen of semantics over whether or not he ‘spearheaded’ a Bush service-record attack or not rather than address the actual issue.

You claimed Kerry spearheaded the attacks. That is false. I didn't think he even said as much as what you quoted, but I stand corrected. On balance though, he hasn't said much about it.

And about Bush having the class to not go into the issue with Kerry: The Bush campaign website has this page which reprints criticisms of Kerry's service records including questions about his purple hearts.

And BTW, there are still plenty of questions about Bush's record, but most of them will probably never be resolved one way or another. Here's a liberal blogger who has posted extensively on the issue and that I agree with completely - basically he says that there's nothing exceptional one way or the other about Bush's service, but he did get some strings pulled to get in, and he did basically drop out before the end. There are also a number of questions, including whether he made up what he missed. But like I said, chances are they'll never be resolved, and so they'll just remain questions.

[Gee-Man]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
You know, it’d be easier to denounce ads like this when pulled on the left, if there was a little more consistency from the left in not pulling the same.

Actually, it's pretty easy to denounce. If you weren't spending so much time framing every single issue into some kind of diatribe against "the left", it would be effortless to denounce cheap political shots regardless of where they come from. John McCain is easily able to do it, and that's why he's such a popular politician.

Kerry's record in Vietnam is pretty clear and well-documented. There's no point questioning how the medals were obtained, especially by people who have a political axe to grind and a story to fabricate. Bush's record in the National Guard is also pretty clear - it should no longer be a real issue to question how he spent his time there now that the military records have been released. Same goes for the smear attacks against Republican John McCain in 2000, or against Democrat Max Cleland - these should have NO place in politics in an ideal world. We should be focusing on real issues, not petty Jr. High-bogus "character" attacks.

Or, of course, you can continue to excuse and justify the further cheapening of our political discourse with more "well, the left does it too!" rants, thereby rationalizing whatever "your side" does because you firmly believe they are "less bad" than the "other" side. Your choice.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by BRussell:
You claimed Kerry spearheaded the attacks. That is false. I didn't think he even said as much as what you quoted, but I stand corrected. On balance though, he hasn't said much about it.

Again semantics.

Saying Kerry spearheaded attacks against Bush’s service record, doesn’t mean he invented the subject, nor that he spearheaded ALL the attacks. I never said he did, though maybe you misread my original statement to mean that.

But clearly, I stand by the fact that in response to a question of his anti-war record, he clearly did in fact initiate an attack on Bush’s SERVICE record.

And about Bush having the class to not go into the issue with Kerry: The Bush campaign website has this page which reprints criticisms of Kerry's service records including questions about his purple hearts.

Kerry’s website includes an entire section questioning Bush’s service record. Does he also include a section EXPLAINING the gaffes in his own? Maybe a section explaining his self-confessed war crimes would be nice! I mean, those charges weren’t leveled by someone else- he made the admission HIMSELF.

By the way, it’s just another part of the ongoing schizophrenia how Kerry questions Bush for not being a part of something in which he claimed turned those involved (himself included) into war criminals. “Doggone it, Bush should have been there in that illegal war too! He should have been there killing livestock and slaughtering innocent civilians with the rest of us! When I got through torching villages, I was over here denouncing the war, calling my fellow soldiers criminals, posing for magazine covers making fun of Iwo Jima, joining pro Viet Cong groups, and that guy had the nerve to be flying fighters in the Air National Guard and WASN’T participating the war I was deadset against! For shame!”

And you’re quoting a blog? What exactly are the credentials of the author to make him some unquestioned authority on the subject? According to his profile, he was 10 at the time Bush joined the air guard. Was he there too or something? Maybe he was the littlest Guard member!

So let’s see- we should discard what people who actual served with Kerry have to say, yet take as the gospel truth a compiled list from someone who couldn’t possibly have any first hand knowledge of Bush’s actual service record. Riiight.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Gee-Man:
Or, of course, you can continue to excuse and justify the further cheapening of our political discourse with more "well, the left does it too!" rants, thereby rationalizing whatever "your side" does because you firmly believe they are "less bad" than the "other" side. Your choice. [/B]

Oh get off your high horse. The left attacks Bush over the most petty elementary school stuff DAILY, even HOURLY. Every other thread here is a petty Bush attack. Usually they’re unfounded, unsubstantiated, knee-jerk reactions, blaming him for something he’s not even responsible for, or harping on him over a verbal gaffe (Hell, we all know he’s not the best speaker ever).

Yet here we have a majority of Kerry’s fellow officers and superiors merely confirming his own self-confessed f-up status, and it’s a ‘Jr. High school petty attack’. Meanwhile with your very next post you’ll likely be posting chimp pictures or something, and calling it political discourse!

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Oh get off your high horse. The left attacks Bush over the most petty elementary school stuff DAILY, even HOURLY. Every other thread here is a petty Bush attack. Usually they’re unfounded, unsubstantiated, knee-jerk reactions, blaming him for something he’s not even responsible for, or harping on him over a verbal gaffe (Hell, we all know he’s not the best speaker ever).

Yet here we have a majority of Kerry’s fellow officers and superiors merely confirming his own self-confessed f-up status, and it’s a ‘Jr. High school petty attack’. Meanwhile with your very next post you’ll likely be posting chimp pictures or something, and calling it political discourse!

Summary:

*** b-b-b-BUT HE STARTED IT!!! ***

Very mature. What's next, "I know you are, but what am I?" or, "You're a poo face!"

Chiding aside, you're a little too ready to believe these stories. As mentioned before, those men in the ad never served with Kerry or didn't sign the Purple Heart forms.

Then there's this:

Just watched Inside Politics, and their story on the smear ad on Kerry's Vietnam service. Judy Woodruff interviewed Larry Thurlow and Jim Rassman. Thurlow was claiming that during Kerry's rescue of Rassman, there was no enemy fire at all, and hence Kerry didn't deserve a purple heart or a bronze star. Rassman held his ground, saying he that Thurlow must be telling this story for partisan reasons.

A simple Google search reveals a completely different story in American History magazine from this past April. While Kerry was rescuing Rassman,

"Thurlow was struggling to get PCF-3's wounded gunner out of his hole and onto the deck when the damaged Swift ran aground hard on a shoal on the right side of the river, sending Thurlow somersaulting into the water. At the same moment, the five Swifts came under fire from the right side again, and Kerry remembered thinking that was it -- they were going to get completely cut off and annihilated in a crossfire."

Thurlow noted in the IP interview that he was thrown into the water that day, but didn't say why. The American History article also notes:

"Kerry and the other wounded men received medical attention aboard a Coast Guard cutter, which was the closest ship capable of treating them. Along with a third Purple Heart for the injury to his right arm, Kerry was also awarded a Bronze Star for his bravery, as was Larry Thurlow."

In other words, if Kerry doesn't deserve his bronze star, seems that Thurlow doesn't deserve his either. But I don't see him rushing to give it back.
[...]

I know, you'll just scream "*BIAS*" and figure that's enough without checking to see if the account of what was on Inside Politics was accurate.

If that makes you feel better, go right ahead, but until you demonstrate how they're wrong, you're just shouting into the wind to make yourself feel better.

BlackGriffen

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Oh get off your high horse. The left attacks Bush over the most petty elementary school stuff DAILY, even HOURLY. Every other thread here is a petty Bush attack. Usually they’re unfounded, unsubstantiated, knee-jerk reactions, blaming him for something he’s not even responsible for, or harping on him over a verbal gaffe (Hell, we all know he’s not the best speaker ever).

Yet here we have a majority of Kerry’s fellow officers and superiors merely confirming his own self-confessed f-up status, and it’s a ‘Jr. High school petty attack’. Meanwhile with your very next post you’ll likely be posting chimp pictures or something, and calling it political discourse!

Indeed. The Double Standard™

[dialo]

This thread is great and all, except that this vet group is the work of republican PR people and that all of the guys that were on kerry's boat support his presidency.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dialo:
This thread is great and all, except that this vet group is the work of republican PR people and that all of the guys that were on kerry's boat support his presidency.

Proof?

[dialo]

Smear Boat Veterans for Bush

The "swift boat" veterans attacking John Kerry's war record are led by veteran right-wing operatives using the same vicious techniques they used against John McCain four years ago.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason

printe-mail

May 4, 2004 | The latest conservative outfit to fire an angry broadside against John Kerry's heroic war record is Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which today launches a campaign to brand the Democrat "unfit to serve as commander in chief." Billing itself as representing the "other 97 percent of veterans" from Kerry's Navy unit who don't support his presidential candidacy, the group insists that all presidential candidates must be "totally honest and forthcoming" about their military service.

These "swift boat vets" claim still to be furious about Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony against the war in which he spoke about atrocities in Indochina's "free fire zones." More than three decades later, facing the complicated truth about Vietnam remains difficult. But this group's political connections make clear that its agenda is to target the election of 2004.

Behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are veteran corporate media consultant and Texas Republican activist Merrie Spaeth, who is listed as the group's media contact; eternal Kerry antagonist and Houston attorney John E. O'Neill, law partner of Spaeth's late husband, Tex Lezar; and retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffman, a cigar-chomping former Vietnam commander once described as "the classic body-count guy" who "wanted hooches destroyed and people killed."

Spaeth told Salon that O'Neill first approached her last winter to discuss his "concerns about Sen. Kerry." O'Neill has been assailing Kerry since 1971, when the former Navy officer was selected for the role by Charles Colson, Richard Nixon's dirty-tricks aide. Spaeth heard O'Neill out, but told him, she says, that he "sounded like a crazed extremist" and should "button his lip" and avoid speaking with the press. But since Kerry clinched the Democratic nomination, Spaeth has changed her mind and decided to donate her public relations services on a "pro bono" basis to O'Neill's latest anti-Kerry effort. "About three weeks ago, four weeks ago," she said, the group's leaders "met in my office for about 12 hours" to prepare for their Washington debut.

Although not as well known as Karen Hughes, Spaeth is among the most experienced and best connected Republican communications executives. During the Reagan administration she served as director of the White House Office of Media Liaison, where she specialized in promoting "news" items that boosted President Reagan to TV stations around the country. While living in Washington she met and married Lezar, a Reagan Justice Department lawyer who ran for lieutenant governor of Texas in 1994 with George W. Bush, then the party's candidate for governor. (Lezar lost; Bush won.)

Through Lezar, who died of a heart attack last January, she met O'Neill, his law partner in Clements, O'Neill, Pierce, Wilson & Fulkerson, a Dallas firm. (It also includes Margaret Wilson, the former counsel to Gov. Bush who followed him to Washington, where she served for a time as a deputy counsel in the Department of Commerce.)

Spaeth's partisanship runs still deeper, as does her history of handling difficult P.R. cases for Republicans. In 1998, for example, she coached Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel, to prepare him for his testimony urging the impeachment of President Clinton before the House Judiciary Committee. She even reviewed videotapes of his previous television appearances to give him pointers about his delivery and demeanor. The man responsible for arranging her advice to Starr was another old friend of her late husband's, Theodore Olson, who was counsel to the right-wing American Spectator when it acted as a front for the dirty-tricks campaign against Clinton known as the Arkansas Project; he is now the solicitor general in the Bush Justice Department. (Olson also happens to be the godfather of Spaeth's daughter.)

In 2000, Spaeth participated in the most subterranean episode of the Republican primary contest when a shadowy group billed as "Republicans for Clean Air" produced television ads falsely attacking the environmental record of Sen. John McCain in California, New York and Ohio. While the identity of those funding the supposedly "independent" ads was carefully hidden, reporters soon learned that Republicans for Clean Air was simply Sam Wyly -- a big Bush contributor and beneficiary of Bush administration decisions in Texas -- and his brother, Charles, another Bush "Pioneer" contributor. (One of the Wyly family's private capital funds, Maverick Capital of Dallas, had been awarded a state contract to invest $90 million for the University of Texas endowment.)

When the secret emerged, spokeswoman Spaeth caught the flak for the Wylys, an experience she recalled to me as "horrible" and "awful." Her job was to assure reporters that there had been no illegal coordination between the Bush campaign and the Wyly brothers in arranging the McCain-trashing message. Not everyone believed her explanation, including the Arizona senator.

The veteran group's founder, Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, first gained notoriety in Vietnam as a strutting, cigar-chewing Navy captain. But it was O'Neill, by now a familiar figure on the Kerry-bashing circuit, who came to Spaeth for assistance.

Until now, Hoffmann has been best known as the commanding officer whose obsession with body counts and "scorekeeping" may have provoked the February 1969 massacre of Vietnamese civilians at Thanh Phong by a unit led by Bob Kerrey -- the Medal of Honor winner who lost a leg in Nam, became a U.S. senator from Nebraska and now sits on the 9/11 commission.

After journalist Gregory Vistica exposed the Thanh Phong massacre and the surrounding circumstances in the New York Times magazine three years ago, conservative columnist Christopher Caldwell took particular note of the cameo role played by Kerrey's C.O., who had warned his men not to return from missions without enough kills. "One of the myths due to die as a result of Vistica's article is that which holds the war could have been won sensibly and cleanly if the 'suits' back in Washington had merely left the military men to their own devices," Caldwell wrote. "In this light, one of the great merits of Vistica's article is its portrait of the Kurtz-like psychopath who commanded Kerrey's Navy task force, Capt. Roy Hoffmann."

Arguments about the war in Vietnam seem destined to continue forever. For now, however, the lingering bitterness and ambiguity of those days provide smear material against an antiwar war hero with five medals on behalf of a privileged Guardsman with a dubious duty record. The president's Texas allies -- whose animus against his Democratic challenger dates back to the Nixon era -- are now deploying the same techniques and personnel they used to attack McCain's integrity four years ago. Bush's "independent" supporters would apparently rather talk about the Vietnam quagmire than about his deadly incompetence in Iraq.

McCain:

“I deplore this kind of politics. I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam..."

msnbc:

The Kerry campaign has denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, saying none of the men in the ad served on the boat that Kerry commanded. The leader of the group, retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann, said none of the 13 veterans in the commercial served on Kerry’s boat but rather were in other swiftboats within 50 yards of Kerry’s.

Jim Rassmann, an Army veteran who was saved by Kerry, said there were only six crewmates who served with Kerry on his boat. Five support his candidacy and one is deceased.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
[B]Kerry’s website includes an entire section questioning Bush’s service record. Does he also include a section EXPLAINING the gaffes in his own? Maybe a section explaining his self-confessed war crimes would be nice! I mean, those charges weren’t leveled by someone else- he made the admission HIMSELF.

Which "gaffes" do you mean? His service records and timelines are all on his website. His senate testimony during the 70s about the war crimes issue is freely available. But why are you insisting that Kerry address criticisms of him while not insisting the same for Bush?

By the way, it’s just another part of the ongoing schizophrenia how Kerry questions Bush for not being a part of something in which he claimed turned those involved (himself included) into war criminals. “Doggone it, Bush should have been there in that illegal war too! He should have been there killing livestock and slaughtering innocent civilians with the rest of us! When I got through torching villages, I was over here denouncing the war, calling my fellow soldiers criminals, posing for magazine covers making fun of Iwo Jima, joining pro Viet Cong groups, and that guy had the nerve to be flying fighters in the Air National Guard and WASN’T participating the war I was deadset against! For shame!”

I know you had fun with that rant, but its entire premise is false that "Kerry questions Bush for not being part" of the war in Vietnam. He asked Bush to prove his service in the guard, which was in question, not why he didn't go to Vietnam.

And you’re quoting a blog? What exactly are the credentials of the author to make him some unquestioned authority on the subject? According to his profile, he was 10 at the time Bush joined the air guard. Was he there too or something? Maybe he was the littlest Guard member!

So let’s see- we should discard what people who actual served with Kerry have to say, yet take as the gospel truth a compiled list from someone who couldn’t possibly have any first hand knowledge of Bush’s actual service record. Riiight.

It's simply a set of links to Bush's files and news reports, along with his analysis of them. And since you're comparing them, look at the difference: These guys going after Kerry are saying the worst kind of stuff imaginable, that he faked his wounds, that he lied in order to get his medals, that his shipmates couldn't count on him and he betrayed them, etc. On the other hand, all that blog does is list what we know, what the questions are, and then concludes that the story is now dead unless some new information comes out.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Very mature. What's next, "I know you are, but what am I?" or, "You're a poo face!"

“You’re a poo face!” works nicely!

Chiding aside, you're a little too ready to believe these stories. As mentioned before, those men in the ad never served with Kerry or didn't sign the Purple Heart forms.

One person’s story I might find hard to believe- but a majority of those that served in the same outfit with him? I find that at least raises eyebrows. Kerry made this an issue himself (I sense a pattern here!) with all of his ‘Band of Brothers’ posturing. He never said that ONLY included his Swift Boat crew, he included in that rhetoric many of these very people. Now it’s come back burn his ass as a majority of people he claimed as ‘Brothers’ him don’t buy his bull, and in fact denounce him. Hell, I’m in favor of awarding him another Purple Heart for the asskicking the real ‘Band of Brothers’ has given him since he pulled that stunt!

Kerry claimed a connection with these very people; in his ‘Band of Brothers’ Swift boat images that were paraded around. Only two of the 22 men pictured have come out in support of him, the rest denounce him.

Of course before all that, these guys were just the salt of the earth! Now that they’ve kicked Kerry’s ass clear back to Hanoi for exploiting them, why, they’re all just a bunch of liars of course for DARING to want the truth known. Now the ‘Band of Brothers’ is a LOT smaller.

In other words, if Kerry doesn't deserve his bronze star, seems that Thurlow doesn't deserve his either. But I don't see him rushing to give it back.

Did we see Thurlow rushing to toss it over a wall in protest? Or pretend he did?

Heh. More schizophrenia. If Kerry was so proud of his medals and how he got them, why did he toss them over a wall, or pretend to? (And subsequently tell lie after lie about what he actually did, whose medals/ribbons he tossed, if he conveniently left his at home, or whatever the hell re-write he was floating at which time.)

Like I said, I don’t have anything against Kerry’s actual service, what I find schizophrenic is how he’s managed to flip/flop for political gain even on HIS OWN record! He’s the cause of 100% of the question over his war record, he’s just currently spinning it from the ‘war hero’ angle, because torching villages, slaughtering livestock, and killing innocent civilians doesn’t play as well in a 2004 election year, as it did in the early 1970’s anti-war movement.

[hey!_Zeus]

Just goes to show at what lengths the neos' will go to to keep the village idiot on the throne.

It's just sickening...




Why isn't there a puking smilie?

[Face Ache]

.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by hey!_Zeus:
Just goes to show at what lengths the neos' will go to to keep the village idiot on the throne.

It's just sickening...




Why isn't there a puking smilie?

But it must be true; it's on the internet!

You're absolutely right. Just after he took over, I heard that he uttered the following; "Yesterday I couldn't spell president, now I are one."

[dialo]

Swift boat veterans for a big lie

A newly formed group called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" has called upon John Kerry to release all his Vietnam service records. They also say Kerry is "unfit to be commander-in-chief."

Let's put "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" under a microscope:

1.__ Their call for Kerry to release his Naval records is a little odd, because, uh, Kerry's already released all his Naval records. The original documents can be downloaded from his web site here. I emailed "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" to let them know where they can find the records (although the exact words I used were slightly less polite). You may want to do the same.

2.___ "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" says "We have every commanding officer he ever had in Vietnam." That's just completely false, or, more diplomatically put, "a ****ing lie." "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" also says, "They all signed a letter saying he is unfit to be commander-in-chief."
Hmmm... There are 29 pages of officer evaluation reports on Kerry (scroll down to "Fitness Reports" if you want to download) that were filled out by Kerry's commanding officers while he served in the Navy. How in the world could "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" read the following descriptions from Kerry's C.O.'s as "unfit"?

October 19, 1967, evaluation from Captain Allen W. Slifer:
A top notch officer in every measurable trait. Intelligent, mature, and rich in educational background and experience, ENS Kerry is one of the finest young officers I have ever met and without question one of the most promising.

September 3, 1968, evaluation from Captain E.W. Harper, Jr.:
LTJG KERRY is an intelligent and competent young naval officer who has performed his duties in an excellent to outstanding manner.

December 18, 1969, evaluation from LCDR George M. Elliott:
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 enemy 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).

Evaluation co-signed by Joseph Streuli and George M. Elliott on January 28, 1969, and March 17, 1969, respectively:
... exhibited all of the traits of an officer in a combat environment. He frequently exhibited a high sense of imagination and judgment in planning operations against the enemy in the Mekong Delta.

March 2, 1970 evaluation from Admiral Walter F. Schlech:
... one of the finest young officers with whom I have served in a long naval career.

I could continue with more positive evaluations of Kerry's service, but quite frankly all the excellence is boring me a bit._

There aren't any negative descriptions. None.

3.__ _Perhaps more important than Kerry's C.O. evaluations are the evaluations of the men under his command. From USA Today (a Rupert Murdoch-owned paper) [correction: I'm wrong– USA Today, as several helpful readers have pointed out, is owned by Gannett, but the point remains that they're no lefty outfit. My apologies for the mistake]:

Interviews with 18 officers and enlisted sailors who served with Kerry in Vietnam mostly portray a young leader with an aggressive command style. Many recall a warm, compassionate officer who cared deeply about his working-class crew. They also remember a warrior who ferried pregnant women and hungry villagers down river for medical care and food.

They recall how he initiated water-balloon fights to break the tension. How he asked his crew to call him "John" on the river and "sir" back at base. And how he listened to their problems in a way that foretold a career in politics.

"His concern for us was overwhelming," says Fred Short, a PCF-94 gunner's mate who would get the shakes when the adrenaline of battle wore off. "He would come around then and put his hand on your shoulder and ask if you're all right," says Short, 56, of North Little Rock "I never had another officer do that."

Even those soldiers who didn't like Kerry had respect for him:

"John was a master at looking out for John," says Larry Thurlow, a fellow boat commander. "John has never been bashful about saying, 'Man, I'm a war hero.' "

Yet, except for one crewmate, even those who felt betrayed by Kerry for later leading Vietnam Veterans Against the War and who call themselves Bush supporters acknowledge that he showed courage under fire. "He was extremely brave, and I wouldn't argue that point," Thurlow says. _

Stephen Gardner is the one guy who served alongside Kerry who has negative things to say about his courage under fire (some "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" guys claim they "served with" Kerry, but actually I think it would be more accurate for them to say they served "around the same time," and perhaps on a different planet, than Kerry did):

Stephen Gardner, a gunner's mate on PCF-44, spoke out for the first time last month after hearing conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh question Kerry's war credentials. Gardner, who says "this country's in a world of trouble" if the Democrat is elected president, calls Kerry a "hesitant" commander who shunned danger.

Gardner, 56, claims Kerry retreated during a firefight under the pretense that he wanted to get Gardner medical attention. "It was a panic run," says Gardner, who calls his wound superficial. While he refuses to call Kerry a coward, he recalls "a guy who was protecting himself most of the time."

That view does not square with the recollections of eight other enlisted sailors who served with Kerry and were interviewed for this story. Kerry and other PCF-44 veterans say the shooting was over when they turned back to base.

"I never saw John back down from anything," crewmember Bill Zaladonis says.

"I have no idea where he's coming from," Kerry says of Gardner.

Rassmann also dismisses the idea of a cautious Kerry. He says he is alive today because of Kerry's courage during a vicious battle in March 1969. The special forces soldier had been blown off PCF-94 by a mine that also injured Kerry's right arm. Swimming in the river while being strafed from both banks, Rassmann was convinced he was about to die before Kerry's boat returned. As the soldier struggled to climb scramble nets draped over the boat's bow, Kerry reached down with his uninjured arm and pulled him on board.

"He was frankly nuts coming up to the bow and exposing himself" to the barrage of bullets and mortars, Rassmann says.

4.__ _Okay, so who's behind "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth"? Two really terrific guys. Meet...

Roy Hoffman

Rear Admiral Hoffman (ret.) was a Captain who headed up a Coastal Surveillance Force unit under which Kerry served. Douglas Brinkley writes about him on pages 177 and 178 in Tour of Duty:

...The new commander, hawkish Captain Roy Hoffman was ecstatic about Sealords. He knew that military reputations were made in wartime, and he was determined to make his in Vietnam. What's more, he had a genuine taste for the more unsavory aspects of warfare, and truly wanted to smoke the Viet Cong out of their tunnels, burn their jungle outposts, and annihilate them once and for all. Decades later, many Swift boat veterans under Hoffman's command would compare him with the rough-hewn colonel in the movie Apocalypse Now who boasted that he "loved the smell of napalm in the morning." In short, Captain Hoffman sought to convince his Swift boat skippers to do whatever it took to notch splashy victories in the Mekong Delta and thereby get him promoted.

Kerry would never forget how ardently Captain Hoffman lauded the exploits of one "enterprising officer" from the Danang Swift division. The officer had surprised some thirty Vietnamese who were fishing in round, floating baskets just off the shore of a peninsula in an area that was, unfortunately for them, a free fire zone. Hoffman considered it ideal military thinking that the Swift skipper had shown the presence of mind to sneak his boat in between the baskets and the shore, cutting the fisherman off from escape and then opening fire on them. All the baskets were sunk, and so were the fishermen. "Fantastic," Hoffman reportedly proclaimed upon hearing the news. Kerry himself would later hear Hoffman praise such "industriousness" at a remarkable meeting in Saigon. Clearly, the Navy had undergone a sea change. Not only were cowboy antics on the rivers of Vietnam no longer frowned upon, they were rewarded with medals.

Sounds like one hell of an American._

Months ago, Hoffman told The Boston Globe that Kerry was a problem and asked to get more specific he said:

"He was just going off on excursions that were not part of the plan at the time." But Hoffman said those problems were corrected and that he admired the gutsy way Kerry later went after the enemy.

It sounds like Hoffman values ingenuity less than gutsiness, and perhaps discretion least of all.

The other "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" point person is...

John O'Neill

After Kerry made a mark as an anti-war veteran in 1971, he earned a spot on Nixon's enemies list. On the Nixon tapes, White House special counsel Charles Colson can be heard assuring Nixon that "We'll keep hitting him [Kerry], Mr. President." In addition to putting Kerry under FBI surveillance, Colson and Nixon recruited cleancut Vietnam vet and toe-the-line right-wing ideologue John O'Neill, who had an hour-long meeting with the President in which Nixon coached him to "Give it to him, give it to him." I've seen a picture of O'Neill and Nixon sitting in front of that White House fireplace. I suppose O'Neill saw his "Kerry character assassination" assignment from Nixon as a 33 year gig.

Although O'Neill had taken over Kerry's Swift boat command after he left Vietnam, before they met on a Dick Cavett Show debate he had never seen Kerry in person. But he despised him. He admonished Kerry everywhere for standing up against Nixon: "The President does our talking for us, as with most Americans. Mr. Kerry certainly does not."

33 years ago O'Neill wanted everyone to shut up so Richard Nixon could lay down the law, just as I'm sure he'd like to crush all dissenting voices to Bush's today. John Kerry stood up then to Nixon, and he stands up now to Bush.

According to Brinkley, O'Neill "truly believed in the U.S. incursions into Cambodia and Laos." That's pretty much all you need to know about the guy, that he would provide unwavering support for a war in Cambodia that was not only blatantly illegal, entirely secret, and abhorrently inhumane, it was also a complete tactical failure. It accomplished absolutely nothing except multiples of thousands of deaths of poor Cambodians. I can't even begin to understand somebody whose ideology is so unclean that he can see goodness in that. You could take a stroll with O'Neill and spot some dogshit and he'd try to convince you that it was a delicious green apple.

Tomorrow, I'll get a little deeper into O'Neill's ideology and the roots of his hatred for Kerry...

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Medals deserved or not, Kerry put his life on the line. Bush didn't and never has.

Case closed ...

Thanks for the link, Dialo ... if that doesn't qualify as a SMACKDOWN, I don't know what does.

[edit]
Of course, looking at the targeting of this ad, I think its safe to assume who they will be primarily directed toward -- people who watch TV but have no internet to see any evidence to the contrary.
[/edit]

[Zimphire]

Kerry grew up hobnobbing with the Massachusetts Cape glitterati, a life of leisure including all the accoutrements -- the best schools, the best vacation homes, the best yachts, etc. He socialized with the rich and famous, especially the Kennedy clan elites, where he was taken under the wing of his future patron saint, Teddy. He attempted to emulate John Kennedy's PT-109 heroics by joining the Navy and using his connections to obtain an assignment for a short tour on a swiftboat in Vietnam. Kerry then went on to collect three Purple Hearts in just two months -- all of dubious merit, but requisite for a ticket home to pursue his political aspirations.

Kerry was (and remains) an effective spokesperson for his Leftist cadre. His anti-war protest period culminated with his 1971 congressional testimony, after which he told the press, "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, 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...."

Regarding the substance -- and source -- of Kerry's claims, Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever to defect from the Soviet bloc, says "KGB priority number one at that time was to damage American power, judgment, and credibility. ... As a spy chief and a general in the former Soviet satellite of Romania, I produced the very same vitriol Kerry repeated to the U.S. Congress almost word for word and planted it in leftist movements. KGB chairman Yuri Andropov managed our anti-Vietnam War operation. He often bragged about having damaged the U.S. foreign-policy consensus, poisoned domestic debate in the U.S., and built a credibility gap between America and European public opinion through our disinformation operations. Vietnam was, he once told me, 'our most significant success'."

http://kerry-04.org/war/record.php

[Lerkfish]

I think the RNC has definitely shot themselves in the foot on this one. the backfire is already causing casualties.

McCain called it dishonest and dishonorable and suggested the white house denounce it as well.

McCain is a republican, last time I checked, and he also served, and was a POW.

are you going to accuse HIM of having a leftist agenda?

Karl Rove is at it again.

[Spliffdaddy]

heh.

[Face Ache]

Wow, I never knew Laura Bush killed someone.

[Gee-Man]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Oh get off your high horse. The left attacks Bush over the most petty elementary school stuff DAILY, even HOURLY. Every other thread here is a petty Bush attack. Usually they’re unfounded, unsubstantiated, knee-jerk reactions, blaming him for something he’s not even responsible for, or harping on him over a verbal gaffe (Hell, we all know he’s not the best speaker ever).

Yet here we have a majority of Kerry’s fellow officers and superiors merely confirming his own self-confessed f-up status, and it’s a ‘Jr. High school petty attack’. Meanwhile with your very next post you’ll likely be posting chimp pictures or something, and calling it political discourse!

Nice try. Reading comprehension much?

Originally posted by Gee-Man:
Kerry's record in Vietnam is pretty clear and well-documented. There's no point questioning how the medals were obtained, especially by people who have a political axe to grind and a story to fabricate. Bush's record in the National Guard is also pretty clear - it should no longer be a real issue to question how he spent his time there now that the military records have been released. Same goes for the smear attacks against Republican John McCain in 2000, or against Democrat Max Cleland - these should have NO place in politics in an ideal world. We should be focusing on real issues, not petty Jr. High-bogus "character" attacks.

Nope, no "chimp pictures" here. Sorry to disappoint you. Not everyone and everything fits into your conspiracy theories.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Indeed. The Double Standard™

Where? Care to re-read what I wrote and explain where the double-standard is?

[SimeyTheLimey]

This is the most ludicrous aspect of this story. The DNC sends a not-so-veiled threat to sue TV stations if they broadcast the ad. Does that mean that Bush should threaten to sue movie theaters who play Farenhate 9/11?

I guess the DNCs lawyers are working with a different body of First Amendment law than the rest of us. I'd suggest they read New York Times v. Sullivan before sending this kind of letter again. They are lucky if they don't get reported to bar counsel.

[Lerkfish]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...cism_of_kerry/

an interesting read

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This is the most ludicrous aspect of this story. The DNC sends a not-so-veiled threat to sue TV stations if they broadcast the ad. Does that mean that Bush should threaten to sue movie theaters who play Farenhate 9/11?

I guess the DNCs lawyers are working with a different body of First Amendment law than the rest of us. I'd suggest they read New York Times v. Sullivan before sending this kind of letter again. They are lucky if they don't get reported to bar counsel.

I dunno..have you seen the ad? I have, and its libelous.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This is the most ludicrous aspect of this story. The DNC sends a not-so-veiled threat to sue TV stations if they broadcast the ad. Does that mean that Bush should threaten to sue movie theaters who play Farenhate 9/11?

I guess the DNCs lawyers are working with a different body of First Amendment law than the rest of us. I'd suggest they read New York Times v. Sullivan before sending this kind of letter again. They are lucky if they don't get reported to bar counsel.

That's the most ludicrous aspect of this story? Hahaha. After all your moral high-groundism about questioning Bush's service? Hahahaha.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This is the most ludicrous aspect of this story. The DNC sends a not-so-veiled threat to sue TV stations if they broadcast the ad. Does that mean that Bush should threaten to sue movie theaters who play Farenhate 9/11?

I guess the DNCs lawyers are working with a different body of First Amendment law than the rest of us. I'd suggest they read New York Times v. Sullivan before sending this kind of letter again. They are lucky if they don't get reported to bar counsel.

I'm not sure if Sullivan would apply - it concerned the official conduct of a public official. The Court would have to extend Sullivan to the alleged wounds and/or heroics of naval officers in the line of duty. I suppose that could happen, but it might be enough of a grey area that media outlets will have to think twice about running the ads.

[OldManMac]

It seems that everything isn't so clear cut now.

Veteran retracts criticism of Kerry

By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff _|_ August 6, 2004

WASHINGTON -- A week after Senator John F. Kerry heralded his wartime experience by surrounding himself at the Democratic convention with his Vietnam ''Band of Brothers," a separate group of veterans has launched a television ad campaign and a book that questions the basis for some of Kerry's combat medals.

But yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book.

Elliott is quoted as saying that 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."

The statement refers to an episode in which Kerry killed a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher, part of a chain of events that formed the basis of his Silver Star. Over time, some Kerry critics have questioned whether the soldier posed a danger to Kerry's crew. Crew members have said Kerry's actions saved their lives.

Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star.

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

Elliott said he was no under personal or political pressure to sign the statement, but he did feel ''time pressure" from those involved in the book. ''That's no excuse," Elliott said. ''I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake."

The affidavit also contradicted earlier statements by Elliott, who came to Boston during Kerry's 1996 Senate campaign to defend Kerry on similar charges, saying that Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star.

The book, ''Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," is to be published next week. Yesterday it reached number one on the bestseller list on Amazon.com, based on advance orders, in part because of publicity about it on the Drudge Report.

The book seeks to undermine one of the central claims of Kerry's campaign -- that his Vietnam War heroism would make him a good commander in chief.

While the Regnery Publishing yesterday declined to release an advance copy of the book, Drudge's website quotes it as saying, ''Elliott indicates that a Silver Star recommendation would not have been made by him had he been aware of the actual facts."

Meanwhile, a television advertising campaign began yesterday featuring many of the anti-Kerry veterans who are quoted in the book, including Elliott. In the ad, Elliott says, ''John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."

Asked to supply evidence to support that statement, the anti-Kerry group provided a copy of Elliott's affidavit. Elliott said the same affidavit had been used in the production of the book.

It is unclear whether the work contains further justification for the assertion, beyond Elliott's statement.

Kerry won the Silver Star for his action on Feb. 28, 1969, in which he shot a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher and running toward a hut. All of Kerry's crewmates who participated and are still living said in interviews last year that the action was necessary and appropriate, and it was Elliott who recommended Kerry for the Silver Star.

In an interview for a seven-part biographical series that appeared in the Globe last year, Kerry said: ''I don't have a second's question" about killing the Viet Cong. ''He was running away with a live B-40, and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it."

Asked whether that meant that he had shot the guerrilla in the back, Kerry said, ''No, absolutely not," adding that the enemy had been running to a hut for cover, where he could have destroyed Kerry's boat and killed the crew.

The forthcoming book is coauthored by Jerome R. Corsi and John O'Neill, a former Vietnam naval officer who in 1971 debated Kerry on the Dick Cavett show, challenging Kerry's assertion that US atrocities had been widespread in Vietnam. O'Neill met with then-President Richard M. Nixon for an hour before debating Kerry, and his efforts were encouraged by Nixon's aides.

O'Neill could not be reached for comment yesterday. President Bush's campaign denied working with O'Neill on the book or with the producers of the television advertisement.

Meanwhile, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, urged Bush yesterday to disassociate himself from what he called a ''dishonest and dishonorable" attack. In response, the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said, ''We have not and we will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam."

The Associated Press reported yesterday that Houston home-builder Bob J. Perry, a major Republican donor, gave at least $100,000 to the organization sponsoring the ad, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

The Kerry campaign spokesman, Michael Meehan, said none of those in the ad had served on a boat with Kerry. ''Some of these men defended John Kerry's honor on his military record in 1996 and so they were either lying then or lying now," Meehan said. ''Either way, it is gutter politics."

The book also raises questions about the action of March 13, 1969, for which Kerry was awarded a Bronze Star and his third Purple Heart, according to an advance chapter of the book.

The anti-Kerry group provided three affidavits from veterans on nearby boats questioning aspects of the award.

On that day, Kerry rescued James Rassmann, who went overboard as a result of an explosion. Rassmann appeared by Kerry's side during the Iowa caucus campaign and at last week's Democratic National Convention, telling the story of how Kerry pulled him out of the water while his boat was under fire.

As in the case of the Silver Star, it was Elliott who recommended Kerry for the Bronze Star. According to the recommendation signed by Elliott, a mine exploded under a boat accompanying Kerry's craft.

''Almost simultaneously, another mine detonated close aboard [Kerry's] PCF-94, knocking First Lieutenant Rassman [sic] into the water and wounding Lt. JG Kerry in the right arm."


Elliott then described how Kerry ''managed to pull Lt. Rassman aboard despite the painful wound in his right arm." Elliott concluded that Kerry had been ''calm, professional, and highly courageous in the face of enemy fire."

Elliott, in the interview yesterday, said that based on the affidavits of the veterans on other boats, he now thinks his assessment about the Bronze Star and third Purple Heart may have been based on poor information.

In one affidavit, for example, Van O'Dell, who said he had been in a boat near Kerry on that day, declared that Kerry had ''lied" about what happened on that day and said that Rassmann was not under enemy fire when Kerry pulled him aboard.

Elliott, asked about the contradiction between his recommendation and his new questioning of Kerry's third Purple Heart, responded, ''It makes me look kind of silly, to be perfectly honest."

But he said: ''I simply have no reason for these guys to be lying, and if they are lying in concert, it is one hell of a conspiracy. So, on the basis of all of the information that has come out, I have chosen to believe the other men. I absolutely do not know first hand."

Naval documents said that Kerry ''received shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on right forearm when a mine detonated close to PCF 94 while engaged in operations on river. Condition and prognosis excellent. Result of hostile action."

Rassmann, reached by telephone yesterday, said he has never had any question that Kerry deserved the Purple Heart. He said there were two separate events: One was earlier in the day, when he and Kerry blew up a rice cache, and the explosion caused some of the rice to hit Kerry, and perhaps some weapon fragments as well. The second involved a mine explosion as Kerry and Rassmann were on patrol. The explosion, Rassmann said, knocked him overboard and threw Kerry against the pilot house, injuring his arm.

Rassmann said that he has always believed that Kerry got the third Purple Heart solely for the injury to his arm as a result of the explosion in the water.

''If he got fragments in the buttocks due to the mine, that is new information to me," Rassmann said.

''I would say there is confusion. Maybe they did lump it together. It was my understanding he got it for the wound being thrown across the pilot house."

Either way, Rassmann said, Kerry deserved the third Purple Heart because such awards are given for injuries incurred in combat, and Kerry's arm injury qualified. He also stood by his recollection that he was under fire when rescued by Kerry.

Those questioning Kerry's medals, Rassmann said, are ''angry about John speaking out against the [Vietnam] war."_

[Spliffdaddy]

What about the other 20 people?

Did they retract their claims?

Or just the one guy?

[OldManMac]

I don't know, but the one who signed the affadavit and retracted it was his commanding officer, most likely because his conscience got to him, unlike those who helped trump the story up, and who will no doubt continue to attack Kerry.

[dcolton]

I wonder how much money he was paid to retract his story? Why aren't the dems going after him for libel and slander?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
What about the other 20 people?

Did they retract their claims?

Or just the one guy?

Well, another one of them is a proven liar. The guy who said this in the ad:

Adds retired Adm. Roy Hoffman: "John Kerry has not been honest," before another veteran, Adrian Lonsdale, finishes the thought, saying: "And, he lacks the capacity to lead."

Was singing a different tune a few years ago when Kerry wasn't running for President:

And who will first get to Lonsdale, who, in 1996, quite easily praised Kerry for the same conduct he is now criticizing him for in an ad?

"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. He was among the finest of those," he said in 1996.

I smell duplicity.

Also of interest from The Note:

The Washington Post's Jim VandeHei and Mary Fitzgerald Note how the president's men handled McCain's call for condemnation: "White House spokesman Scott McClellan declined to do so and instead criticized the financing of the ad, saying the president 'deplores all the unregulated soft-money activity.'"

BlackGriffen

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I wonder how much money he was paid to retract his story? Why aren't the dems going after him for libel and slander?

There could also a threat of perjury in there (unless the statute of limitations is up). He either lied on the medal forms or lied on that affidavit.

BG

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I dunno..have you seen the ad? I have, and its libelous.

So is F9/11.