Check out this attack ad on Kerry

[BRussell]

So I guess these guys don't like Kerry (http://www.swiftvets.com/anyquestions.mov)?

[Northgate]

Originally posted by BRussell
So I guess these guys don't like Kerry (http://www.swiftvets.com/anyquestions.mov)?

So where's the beef? There's absolutely no content in that ad. It's all fluff. Where's the smoking gun? What are the specifics? Details?

All of this over one of his multiple purple hearts?

Where are Bush's purple hearts. Did those ambitious secretaries steal them from Bush while reading magazines and taking dips in the pool?

How stupid do they think the American people are?

[Scott]

You want a 30 second ad or a 30 minute ad? Anyway Northgate maybe going to the web site would be a good idea?

[BRussell]

Watch who says "I served with John Kerry" and who doesn't. They clearly imply that everyone in that video served with him, but I wonder. It's not like it would be hard to find vietnam vets who don't like Kerry. I'm sure lots of them hate him because of how he opposed the war and what he said when he got back. Apparently in the book they claim some of his purple heart wounds were self-inflicted.

[pfflam]

That's dispicable slander by a buncha disgruntled opinionated Republican vets

and its about as low as you can get

[faust9]

Originally posted by BRussell
Watch who says "I served with John Kerry" and who doesn't. They clearly imply that everyone in that video served with him, but I wonder. It's not like it would be hard to find vietnam vets who don't like Kerry. I'm sure lots of them hate him because of how he opposed the war and what he said when he got back. Apparently in the book they claim some of his purple heart wounds were self-inflicted.

John Kerry served on a Target for a year (a surface ship--carrier I believe) You can go an entire year and not see all members of the crew yet say "I served with so and so." I get a kick out of these ads because I served with probably 300-400 people on one sub over 4 years. Did I know most of them? Not really. I knew their names when I had to. I knew who to see if I needed something from another division. Simply because I severed with so many guys in no way shape of form qualifies me to judge any of them save the handful (50 or so) I work closely with among with 15 where in my division.

These ads play on the ignorance of the masses in that the people "served" with John Kerry, but only one of them actually "served" with John Kerry on the swift boat if I recall(I believe it was the gunners mate). The rest of the swift boat crew back John Kerry--Wonder why. Also, Its not hard to find one person who hated you while serving with you. I can list a handful of guys I hated, and I'm sure I'm on a few lists myself. If I ever run for office I expect to hear "I served with Faust9(insert real name here) and he was no sailor..."

[faust9]

Also I find it funny (ironic like a lie funny) that a military doctor remembers John Kerry 40 years later. Bullshit!!! Military hospitals are impersonal machines. You don't get aquatinted with a doctor and remember said healer 40 years later; likewise a doctor who treats a man in an afternoon (removed shrapnel and documented the removal of said shrapnel) and remember that face. Even if Kerry made his face known when he returned stateside. It's damn hard to remember causal contacts in the military because you see so many new people all the time(probably more-so in a military hospital in a war zone).

[Anders]

All these men served with John Kerry? I guess Bush is thinking "Damn. If only one of them would say I served with GWB"

[pfflam]

Originally posted by Anders
All these men served with John Kerry? I guess Bush is thinking "Damn. If only one of them would say I served with GWB" :lol:

[alcimedes]

The Kerry campaign featured the photograph in an advertisement released in May titled Lifetime. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has contacted surviving members of this group to find out how many actually support John Kerry, and discovered that of 19 Swift boat skippers pictured other than Kerry, 12 consider him unfit, 4 are neutral, two have died, and 1 is working with the Kerry campaign. Four other officers were not present for the photo session; all oppose Kerry.

Only 1 of John Kerry's 23 fellow Swift boat commanders from Coastal Division 11 supports his candidacy today.

along with

John Kerry has long insisted that using the three-injury loophole to leave combat early was his own idea, but Kerry's fellow Swift officer Thomas Wright, who served on occasion as the OIC (Officer in Charge) of Kerry's boat group, contradicts that claim. Wright reports that he "had a lot of trouble getting Kerry to follow orders," and that those who worked with Kerry found him "oriented towards his personal, rather than unit goals and objectives." He therefore requested that Kerry be removed from his boat group. After John Kerry qualified for his third Purple Heart, Thomas Wright and two fellow officers informed him of the obscure regulation, and told him to go home. Wright concluded, "We knew how the system worked and we didn’t want him in Coastal Division 11."

not exactly a ringing endoresemnt, if true.

[AsLan^]

Whether he was a good soldier or a sub standard soldier, he still fought for our country (for usa peoples).

Military service records are relative, if people in charge of you dont like you then they can write bad things about you. The truth can be distorted and misinterpreted later, and it is usually not worth the effort disputing derogatory information at the time if its really not that bad. Disputing what a superior has written about you could worsen the relationship between you and your superior (who thinks they are "leading" by pointing out what they feel to be your shortcomings).

If Kerry didnt get along with his superiors for whatever reason they would feel inclined to write poorly of him. This is just the way it is and Im sure its true for many jobs.

Even if his evaluation reports were subpar, as long as he had no misconduct I applaud his (and all other veterans) service in war.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Northgate
So where's the beef? There's absolutely no content in that ad. It's all fluff. Where's the smoking gun? What are the specifics? Details?

All of this over one of his multiple purple hearts?

Where are Bush's purple hearts. Did those ambitious secretaries steal them from Bush while reading magazines and taking dips in the pool?

How stupid do they think the American people are?

Except a lot of these people served with Kerry.

[kozchris]

Originally posted by faust9
Also I find it funny (ironic like a lie funny) that a military doctor remembers John Kerry 40 years later. Bullshit!!! Military hospitals are impersonal machines. You don't get aquatinted with a doctor and remember said healer 40 years later; likewise a doctor who treats a man in an afternoon (removed shrapnel and documented the removal of said shrapnel) and remember that face. Even if Kerry made his face known when he returned stateside. It's damn hard to remember causal contacts in the military because you see so many new people all the time(probably more-so in a military hospital in a war zone).

Maybe it stuck in his mind since he realized it was a self inflicted wound. :err:

Kerry is a joke.

Bush in '04.

[Placebo]

Originally posted by kozchris

Bush in '04.
This is America, not Sparta. We don't need a "war president".

[NaplesX]

i heard an interview with one of the guys in that group that claims that during the now famous incident where he (kerry) saves the life of one of the swift boat members, that Kerry ordered his boat to flee from the scene as one of the three boats were sinking and three guys were in the water and all of the crew on the sinking boat were unconscious. This guy was on the boat that stayed to get the downed crew. he claims that the boat was hit by a remote controlled mine in the water and it blew the boat 6 feet out of the water.

He said that Kerry's boat returned only after there was no more firing and it was clear. He claims that in Kerry's AAR, Kerry claims that he fled for three miles under fire. This guy said that they receive little to no return fire after the initial mine attack. These guys are the members of the other two boats that were on the same patrol and in the very same location at the time of this particular attack.

pflam i think that you are wrong about them just being disgruntled vets. They did the same job as him and actually served with and around him. I think that they may have a valid point of view, regardless of party affiliation.

Edit: If kerry is going to run on his Vietnam "hero" persona then his service record is fair game. And if there are people that are standing up and saying that it is not as sterling as he puts forth. You should at least take a listen. It has been my experience that Vets only talk highly of other vets unless there is good reason. Not to say that it could all be political, just that it is worth considering.

[Northgate]

You know, Republicans are very good at throwing out "support the troops" when they no longer wish to argue the merits of the war. It's code for saying "shut the f*ck up, how dare you criticise the government when our boys are out there dying to protect us". Which is also code for "if you disagree with Bush then you are wishing our soldiers to die and are therefore a communist".

In other words, once we're at war all discussion is at a standstill. This is basically Sean Hannity's argument.

BUT

If you're a veteran who volunteered to fight in a war and you want to run for the highest office in the land...then you're a scumbag opportunist.

Again...THE HYPOCRISY ASTOUNDS!

But hey, don't take my word for it. Take John McCain's (who I voted for):

McCain is now angry at an anti-Kerry ad campaign criticizing his military services as "dishonest and dishonorable".

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

"It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me," McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press, referring to his bitter Republican primary fight with President Bush.

The 60-second ad features Vietnam veterans who accuse the Democratic presidential nominee of lying about his decorated Vietnam War record and betraying his fellow veterans by later opposing the conflict [...]

"I wish they hadn't done it," McCain said of his former advisers. "I don't know if they knew all the facts."

Asked if the White House knew about the ad or helped find financing for it, McCain said, "I hope not, but I don't know. But I think the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad."

The ad is beyond the bounds of common decency -- to attack the highly-decorated Kerry, who volunteered for combat duty while AWOL Bush played pool volleyball with ambitious secretaries in Texas. And the ad doesn't feature a single vet who served on Kerry's swiftboat.

But why is McCain acting all shocked? The Bush machine pulled the same smear crap against him in 2000, as he himself notes.

Partially from Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/8/5/114044/0656)

[jimmac]

I was going to give a longer reply but Northgate already said it best.

Like I've said the mudslinging has already begun.

I imagine it would be easy to have served in Vietnam, had something against the war, and have a group of vets who don't like you. ;)

[NaplesX]

"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is a tax exempt non-partisan public advocacy "527" organization that consists of and is limited to former military officers and enlisted men who served in Vietnam on U.S. Navy "Swift Boats" or in affiliated commands."

I checked out the site and there are no political references other than the fact that kerry is using their photos to forward his campaign and that the stories he is telling do not match the facts as they see them.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by NaplesX
"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is a tax exempt non-partisan public advocacy "527" organization that consists of and is limited to former military officers and enlisted men who served in Vietnam on U.S. Navy "Swift Boats" or in affiliated commands."

I checked out the site and there are no political references other than the fact that kerry is using their photos to forward his campaign and that the stories he is telling do not match the facts as they see them.

You're more naive than I thought Naples. You're usually more adept than this. Come on.

[faust9]

Originally posted by kozchris
Maybe it stuck in his mind since he realized it was a self inflicted wound. :err:

Kerry is a joke.

Bush in '04.

Lame... Utterly lame.

http://www.jordansplace.net/politics/images/kerr_bush_nam.gif

Proof's in the puddin' there pal.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is a tax exempt non-partisan public advocacy "527" organization that consists of and is limited to former military officers and enlisted men who served in Vietnam on U.S. Navy "Swift Boats" or in affiliated commands."

I checked out the site and there are no political references other than the fact that kerry is using their photos to forward his campaign and that the stories he is telling do not match the facts as they see them.
You didn't look hard enough:
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.

[giant]

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..."
also from msnbc (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5612836):
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.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
You didn't look hard enough: You are right, I did not look to hard. But what i was looking for was blatant references and links to Kerry-bashing sites. You know the usual on smear sites. It appeard to me that they have legitimate issues with his service record. Mind, you I am not saying that I swallow everything or that I think that there is no political bias at play.

It seems that the motivation is to separate themselves from the Kerry Campaign rather than support Bush's, even though that may be a side effect. That is what I was commenting on.

[faust9]

Originally posted by giant
McCain:

also from msnbc (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5612836):

There ya go. I stand corrected. I could've sworn one of his crew members spoke out against him at one point--guess not. Anywho, as I said in my post above, you can server with someone and you can "serve" with someone. The only opinions that matter come from those who worked with the man on that one boat not around the man.

PS. I still say the doctor is a bold faced liar. Go to a military hospital and see what I mean. Go to a war zone hospital and really see what I mean. Unbelievable, the lengths my party will go to.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
It seems that the motivation is to separate themselves from the Kerry Campaign rather than support Bush's, even though that may be a side effect. That is what I was commenting on.
Would it hurt you to read before replying? Now posted for the second time
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.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Placebo
This is America, not Sparta. We don't need a "war president".

Please tell me you aren't serious.


It doesn't matter how much of FAKE Kerry is exposed to be. It doesn't matter how insanely liberal he is. It doesn't matter what his voting record is. It doesn't matter how many times he's SCREWED the intel community and military and security of the United States itself. It doesn't matter that he delibrately reenacted footage after his "combat" tour. It doesn't matter that he's on VIDEO admitting war crimes.

He's not George Bush and that's all that matters to giant, et al. I wish they'd just admit it.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Please tell me you aren't serious.


It doesn't matter how much of FAKE Kerry is exposed to be. It doesn't matter how insanely liberal he is. It doesn't matter what his voting record is. It doesn't matter how many times he's SCREWED the intel community and military and security of the United States itself. It doesn't matter that he delibrately reenacted footage after his "combat" tour. It doesn't matter that he's on VIDEO admitting war crimes.

He's not George Bush and that's all that matters to giant, et al. I wish they'd just admit it. I am actually hoping more and more that the crazed left gets their wish. I mean, come on GWB is fairly predictable and we know that in this time that some see as "wartime", that what we really need to focus on is.. well, John Kerry.

"As president, John Kerry will cut taxes for businesses that create jobs here in America instead of moving them overseas."

"When John Kerry is president, middle-class taxes will go down."

"John Kerry will cut the deficit in half during his first four years in office."

"As president, John Kerry will lead a coalition of the able - because no force on earth is more able than the United States and its allies."

"As president, John Kerry will offer a fully refundable College Opportunity Tax credit on up to $4,000 of tuition for every year of college and offer aid to states that keep tuitions down."

"As president, John Kerry will implement a "Restore America's Waters" campaign, an integrated approach to protecting our precious, limited water resources. He will work with states on the toughest water quality challenges, restore damaged watersheds, protect wetlands, invest in our waterfronts and coastal communities, and protect our oceans."

"...John Kerry will reduce gang violence..."

"As president, John Kerry will fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act..."

I'll give him one thing, he has confidence in himself.

Go Johnny, Go.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I am actually hoping more and more that the crazed left gets their wish. I mean, come on GWB is fairly predictable and we know that in this time that some see as "wartime", that what we really need to focus on is.. well, John Kerry.

"As president, John Kerry will cut taxes for businesses that create jobs here in America instead of moving them overseas."

"When John Kerry is president, middle-class taxes will go down."

"John Kerry will cut the deficit in half during his first four years in office."

"As president, John Kerry will lead a coalition of the able - because no force on earth is more able than the United States and its allies."

"As president, John Kerry will offer a fully refundable College Opportunity Tax credit on up to $4,000 of tuition for every year of college and offer aid to states that keep tuitions down."

"As president, John Kerry will implement a "Restore America's Waters" campaign, an integrated approach to protecting our precious, limited water resources. He will work with states on the toughest water quality challenges, restore damaged watersheds, protect wetlands, invest in our waterfronts and coastal communities, and protect our oceans."

"...John Kerry will reduce gang violence..."

"As president, John Kerry will fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act..."

I'll give him one thing, he has confidence in himself.

Go Johnny, Go.

I'm glad you agree that those are good things and that it would a good thing if they were all accomplished.

As for confidence...the current president thinks he can win a war against a tactic.

[addabox]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Please tell me you aren't serious.


It doesn't matter how much of FAKE Kerry is exposed to be. It doesn't matter how insanely liberal he is. It doesn't matter what his voting record is. It doesn't matter how many times he's SCREWED the intel community and military and security of the United States itself. It doesn't matter that he delibrately reenacted footage after his "combat" tour. It doesn't matter that he's on VIDEO admitting war crimes.

He's not George Bush and that's all that matters to giant, et al. I wish they'd just admit it.

Uh oh, SDW has popped a rivet....

"Insanely liberal"? His voting record in the senate puts him bout the middle of the pack, right wing talking points not withstanding.

"Screwed the intel, military and security of the US"? I guess you're talking about the distorted bookkeeping of the Bush campaign, where a vote against an omnibus spending bill that breaks the bank and has little support on either side of the aisle gets counted as a "vote against America's security" and a vote against any bill that anywhere in it proposes a tax decrease, no matter how otherwise flawed or unpopular, is counted a "vote to raise taxes"' and a vote against continued funding of a program never enacted, the money for which was being hoarded and which was de-funded even more decisively by the republican senate on the same day is counted as a "vote against intel".

You must know the "reenacted battle scenes" is bullshit, right? I mean, you would have to have your head completely up your ass not to have figured that out by now, and I would never say that of you.

As far as admitting war crimes, it's not a shameful secret that someone just happened to get on video. Kerry came back from Vietnam shaken by what he and his fellow soldiers had ended up doing. He spoke bravely of how the confusion of ends and means and us and them had led the soldiers in Vietnam into impossible situations. It is why he turned against the war, and he had the character to include himself among the guilty.

Naturally, bush would never be caught in the shameful act of admitting error.

So anyway, that's your list of Kerry crimes? Because they are all lies. And not "he said/she said" lies, but flat out lies that anyone who cares can verify from the public record.

This is the kind of stuff that makes me loath what has become of the American right: the deeply embedded dishonesty, the reflexive reach for whatever will serve to attack opponents without the least concern for accuracy, decency or sense.

When this kind of stuff becomes a regular part of the public discourse it does damage to our ability to solve our problems and move ahead. It shoots past the politics as usual, "cast the opposition in an unflattering light", straight into National Enquirer type slime.

A diet of which seems to be your preferred menu.

[faust9]

Originally posted by midwinter
I'm glad you agree that those are good things and that it would a good thing if they were all accomplished.

As for confidence...the current president thinks he can win a war against a tactic. :lol:

Funny, I never thought of it like that. Good point because the term terrorism was first coined during the French Revolutionary War---oh around 1798'ish. So, if people have been fighting the tactic since it was brought into the vernacular (it was a tactic long before this though) what does that say about our war on terror? Hmmm I wonder:???: Hmmmm maybe it'll go as well as the war on drugs. One can only hope (sarcasm).

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by faust9
:lol:

Funny, I never thought of it like that. Good point because the term terrorism was first coined during the French Revolutionary War---oh around 1798'ish. So, if people have been fighting the tactic since it was brought into the vernacular (it was a tactic long before this though) what does that say about our war on terror? Hmmm I wonder:???: Hmmmm maybe it'll go as well as the war on drugs. One can only hope (sarcasm). It is actually a feeling.

You are talking about the coined "War on Terror", no?

"War on terrorists" doesn't have the same ring, but anyone, including my 7 year old son, understands that we at war with terrorists and not the feeling or the tactic of terror. Although, a side effect would be that terror would be reduced.

I wonder if you guys really think that it is clever to say "GWB wants to fight a tactic, ha ha what a dummy". I remember this type of mocking being done in 6th grade.

You guys are truly comical.

[faust9]

Originally posted by NaplesX
It is actually a feeling.

You are talking about the coined "War on Terror", no?

"War on terrorists" doesn't have the same ring, but anyone, including my 7 year old son, understands that we at war with terrorists and not the feeling or the tactic of terror. Although, a side effect would be that terror would be reduced.

I wonder if you guys really think that it is clever to say "GWB wants to fight a tactic, ha ha what a dummy". I remember this type of mocking being done in 6th grade.

You guys are truly comical.

But it hasn't been reduced. In fact it, terrorism, has gone up.

[BRussell]

In discussing security issues with Post editors and reporters Tuesday, Kerry campaign adviser Rand Beers took issue with the way the Bush administration has defined the effort to root out Islamic terrorists.

"The war is not against terrorism, which is a tactic, but in fact what we are talking about is a struggle against fundamentalist, Islamic jihahidists . . . who are bent on destroying the United States," he said.

Beers, former counterterrorism director in the Bush White House, said the administration has overemphasized military action at the expense of economic, diplomatic, political and other efforts in going after jihadists.

"That's why I chose to use the word 'struggle' instead of 'war' to actually define how I personally view this particular problem," he added.

From here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19393-2004Jul27.html?nav=rss_politics/elections/2004).

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
It is actually a feeling.

You are talking about the coined "War on Terror", no?

"War on terrorists" doesn't have the same ring, but anyone, including my 7 year old son, understands that we at war with terrorists and not the feeling or the tactic of terror. Although, a side effect would be that terror would be reduced.

I wonder if you guys really think that it is clever to say "GWB wants to fight a tactic, ha ha what a dummy". I remember this type of mocking being done in 6th grade.

You guys are truly comical.

Actually, it's a War On Terrorism and those who deploy similar paramilitary and unconventional military tactics.

You should explain to your 7 year old son that the flaw in his logic, which we should allow considering the fact that he's only 7, is that he is assuming there is a finite number of terrorists we are at war with. That is not the case. As faust9 rightly pointed out, we are at war with an ideology here, and one that is really a political ideology in the Orwellian sense of the word
politics": nothing more, nothing less. And it is a political movement that, as Richard Clark notes, is masquerading as a religious one. You cannot kill an ideology--there are still Nazis roaming around. There are still communists. There are still white supremacists. There are still cult members from long-gone religions.

To make matters worse, when you kill those who believe the ideology, you run the very real risk of creating more converts--brothers, sisters, friends of the person you took out. And even if you don't make converts out of them to whatever cause you're fighting, you wind up with a new set of hostile folks about which the intelligence community knows nothing.

Anyway. I'm off to hear the Mormon Tabernacle Choir rehearse.

Cheers
Scott

[Scott]

I surrender.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by faust9
But it hasn't been reduced. In fact it, terrorism, has gone up.


Yeah! They always seem to gloss over that one. ;)

[dmz]

This is minor compared to Kerry's complete inabilibty to get out any sort of message other than "Bush sucks more than me."

[faust9]

Originally posted by dmz
This is minor compared to Kerry's complete inabilibty to get out any sort of message other than "Bush sucks more than me."

Yeah, OK. It helps to look into the situation prior to commenting on it. What say you cruise by Kerry's site and read what he proposes. What say to speed over to the DNC site and read what's there. How 'bout you wait for the first debate before you wave the "Kerry has no plans" flag. Oh, and while you're at what's Bush plan for the next 4 years. Haven't really heard a peep about that other than "War, war, war. Terror, terror, terror. War, Terror, tax cuts." Nuf said.

[Scott]

Originally posted by jimmac
Yeah! They always seem to gloss over that one. ;)

Yea and France was peaceful before D day.:rolleyes:

[faust9]

Originally posted by Scott
Yea and France was peaceful before D day.:rolleyes:

Useless. I could link you to the re-released terror assessment putout by the state department a month ago, but you'd discredit it as partisan. You know the one that said terror incidents where on the rise... That one. I could do that but you'd retort with comments about France, or Clinton.

[giant]

Swift boat veterans for a big lie (http://www.mattgunn.com/#swiftboat50504)
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 fucking 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...

[Scott]

Point #2 they make is a little dishonest. If I understand it correctly SBVfT feel that Kerry is unfit based on what he did after he got out of the Navy. So siting his naval record and claiming that then there's nothing there to say he's "unfit" is a bit of a straw man of a rebuttal.

[pfflam]

It is disgusting that these 'vets' would willfully lie so baldfacedly in order to get a political win . . . they should have more self-respect.

[giant]

Originally posted by Scott
So siting his naval record and claiming that then there's nothing there to say he's "unfit" is a bit of a straw man of a rebuttal.
Apparently you didn't read the letter and its actual requests:
Specifically, we the undersigned formally request that you authorize the Department of the Navy to independently release your military records (through your execution of Standard Form 180), complete and unaltered, including your military medical records. Further, we call upon you to correct the misconceptions your campaign seeks to create as to your conduct while in Vietnam.

[dmz]

Originally posted by faust9
What say....What say....How 'bout


Why? He can't communicate in public---he has no legs [read mantra] for the media to pick up on---except for "I don't suck as bad as Bush"......sorry, I don't see the point. The only thing he hasn't done in that regard is pick Michael Moore as his VP.

Also, Kerry could be running against Fred Fintstone---it wouldn't make him an effective communicator. Hell, at least Clinton could lie effectively.

[faust9]

Originally posted by dmz
Why? He can't communicate in public---he has no legs [read mantra] for the media to pick up on---except for "I don't suck as bad as Bush"......sorry, I don't see the point. The only thing he hasn't done in that regard is pick Michael Moore as his VP.

Also, Kerry could be running against Fred Fintstone---it wouldn't make him an effective communicator. Hell, at least Clinton could lie effectively.

Oh to live life in an ivory tower with rose colored windows!!! At what point in time did reading become a gastly prospect especially when deciding on a little thing like a president? Go figure.

Oh and here's some words from the great orator---GWB!!!


They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.

source: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/05/bush.ap/index.html

So, was that a Fraudian slip or what?

Genius!!! The great Communicator!!!

Also, Kerry does communicate in public as you put it. YOU have to look though because Kerry is just now getting the media coverage he should have been getting for the last month or two...

[addabox]

Originally posted by dmz
Why? He can't communicate in public---he has no legs [read mantra] for the media to pick up on---except for "I don't suck as bad as Bush"......sorry, I don't see the point. The only thing he hasn't done in that regard is pick Michael Moore as his VP.

Also, Kerry could be running against Fred Fintstone---it wouldn't make him an effective communicator. Hell, at least Clinton could lie effectively.

Legs? Mantra? In that regard? Michael Moore? In public?

Are you sure you want this to be the post wherein you criticize Kerry's communication skills?

[mrtwistor]

Ah, very interesting. I am somewhat related to one of the members of "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", George Elliot.

[addabox]

Originally posted by Scott
Point #2 they make is a little dishonest. If I understand it correctly SBVfT feel that Kerry is unfit based on what he did after he got out of the Navy. So siting his naval record and claiming that then there's nothing there to say he's "unfit" is a bit of a straw man of a rebuttal.

Absolutely untrue. They go to great lengths to give the impression that they "served" with Kerry and that his behavior in country (which they claim to have observed first-hand) was cowardly, glory seeking and shameful.

[dmz]

Originally posted by faust9
Oh and here's some words from the great orator---GWB!!!



Or Fred flintstone.....


I think you're missing the point here.

[dmz]

Originally posted by addabox
Legs? Mantra? In that regard? Michael Moore? In public?

Are you sure you want this to be the post wherein you criticize Kerry's communication skills?



Sorry, I'll keep my metaphors to a minimum for the eclectic intolerant here. ;)

[jimmac]

Originally posted by dmz
Sorry, I'll keep my metaphors to a minimum for the eclectic intolerant here. ;)

There's a phrase that comes to mind here : " Clutching at straws ".:rolleyes:

[Northgate]

Man, they're being discredited one by one:

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 whole swift boat veterans smear campaign is collapsing.

[groverat]

Poor George.

[Placebo]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Please tell me you aren't serious.


It doesn't matter how much of FAKE Kerry is exposed to be. It doesn't matter how insanely liberal he is. It doesn't matter what his voting record is. It doesn't matter how many times he's SCREWED the intel community and military and security of the United States itself. It doesn't matter that he delibrately reenacted footage after his "combat" tour. It doesn't matter that he's on VIDEO admitting war crimes.

He's not George Bush and that's all that matters to giant, et al. I wish they'd just admit it.
Calm down. I can't even tell which side you're arguing for.

[dmz]

Originally posted by jimmac
There's a phrase that comes to mind here : " Clutching at straws ".:rolleyes:



okay, okay......I'll stop using big words too.

[Anders]

Originally posted by groverat
Poor George.

Well he made a bad judgement in the heat of fire. Thats why he doesn´t seek promotion to commander in chief ;)

[mrtwistor]

As I said before I personally know George Elliot - he was my grandmother's stepson-in-law. I think he was sloppy in reading some of the statements he signed - he basically had a huge pile of things to take care of for publication. His reason for joining the group was that he was, and still is,dismayed over Kerry's expose of atrocities commited by American troops. His position is that the number of troops involved in such atrocities was very small, and that Kerry had implied that a majority of Vietnam vets were involved in such acts. As a retired career military officer, he feels that this besmirches the honor of those that served. The other members of the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" have used George's words to imply that he was questioning Kerry's war record, which he wasn't. Overall George is a honorable man, as evinced by his willingness to admit he was wrong. There was a lot of contention in the relationship between his wife and my garndmother, and George was able to take and objective and fair-minded assesment of the situation that no one elese involved was able to.

[giant]

Hey, Check it out (http://mediamatters.org/items/200408060010).

Turns out one of them is just a freeper nutcase:
While much has been written about the identity and history of John E. O'Neill -- one of the authors of the forthcoming Regnery book Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry (whose links in the GOP go back to his days as "protégé of Nixon-era dirty trickster Charles Colson") -- little has been said about his co-author, Jerome R. Corsi, PhD.

• Corsi on Islam: "a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion"

• Corsi on Catholicism: "Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press"

• Corsi on Muslims: "RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters -- it all goes together"

• Corsi on "John F*ing Commie Kerry": "After he married TerRAHsa, didn't John Kerry begin practicing Judiasm? He also has paternal grandparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry?"

• Corsi on Senator "FAT HOG" Clinton: "Anybody ask why HELLary couldn't keep BJ Bill satisfied? Not lesbo or anything, is she?"

...

On Catholics and the Pope

CORSI: Maybe while he's there he can tell the UN what he's going to do about the sexual crimes committed by "priests" in his "Church" during his tenure. Or, maybe that's the connection -- boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press. (03/03/2003)

CORSI: So this is what the last days of the Catholic Church are going to look like. Buggering boys undermines the moral base and the laywers rip the gold off the Vatican altars. We may get one more Pope, when this senile one dies, but that's probably about it. (12/16/2002)

On Islam and Arabs

CORSI: Let's see exactly why it isn't the case that Islam is a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion? Where's the proof to the contrary? (04/24/2004)

CORSI: Islam is like a virus -- it affects the mind -- maybe even better as an analogy -- it is a cancer that destroys the body it infects... No doctor would hesitate to eliminate cancer cells from the body. (11/26/02)

CORSI: Islam is a peaceful religion as long as the women are beaten, the boys buggered, and the infidels killed. (11/22/2002)

CORSI: How's this as an analogy -- the Koran is simply the "software" for producing deviant cancer cell political behavior and violence in human beings. (02/15/2002)

CORSI: Think the liberal press will ever let out that these 2 were lovers -- typical Islamic boy-buggering -- older man, younger man -- black Muslims? I doubt it. Not a pretty picture, but one certain to be hidden by PC media. (11/08/2002)

CORSI: Isn't the Democratic Party the official SODOMIZER PROTECTION ASSOCIATION of AMERICA -- oh, I forgot, it was just an accident that Clintoon's first act in office was to promote "gays in the military." RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters -- it all goes together. (11/18/2001)

....

[see link, keep reading]

[mrtwistor]

I fear for George's safety - the freepers are not nice people. The Swift Boat website is designed by the freeper's media arm. For anyone who is not aware, the freepers are the ones who put Nick Berg's father on their enemies list. David Brock, the founder of Media Matters comes into the bookstore I work in. I heard from my mother today that George retracted his retraction. This whole thing is crazy.

[BR]

Ha, even Bill O'Reilly defended Kerry on this issue. Priceless.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by faust9
Oh and here's some words from the great orator---GWB!!!
What better reason to update my sigs!!!


:lol: :lol:

as Freud says, we always tell the truth!!

[pfflam]

and the BEST part is McClellan's attempt to clean it up . . . which digs the hole further:

"But the American people know this president speaks with clarity and conviction, and the terrorists know by his actions he means it," McClellan said." :lol:

[7E7]

Originally posted by BR
Ha, even Bill O'Reilly defended Kerry on this issue. Priceless.

He did not exactly defend Kerry on the issue. He, in fact, believed the veteran who was speaking out against Kerry and found his recollection of events to be very credible. What O'Reilly pointed out was the fact that a lot of Americans may not think the story was all that important in the grand scheme of things. He did not exactly leap to Kerry's aid as you imply.

I repectfully disagree with O'Reilly on this one. Kerry has made a HUGE issue out of his service in Vietnam and how it relates to his fitness to be President. He hardly talked at all about his 20 years service in the Senate which only makes sense when you consider that he really has not done anything of note during that time (even though he claims to have a much more impressive record than he actually has regarding landmark legislation) except sponsor a couple of pieces of relatively insignificant legislation. But don't take my word for it:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=134

One fact is not in dispute: Kerry lied (and this lie is contained in the Congressional Record) when he said that he was sent by our government to Cambodia. The fact is this is a lie and one he has not apparently repeated since doing so on the floor of the Senate in the 1980s during a impassioned debate regarding U.S. policy in Latin America. Again, don't take my word for it as here is an excerpt taken from the Congressional Record:

132 Cong.Rec. S3564-02
AMENDMENT NO. 1718
(Purpose: To restrict assistance to the Nicaraguan democratic resistance to
humanitarian assistance, and for other purposes)
**************
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KERRY. Thank you, Mr. President. ...Mr. President, I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared-seared-in me, that says to me, before we send another generation into harm's way we have a responsibility in the U.S. Senate to go the last step, to make the best effort possible in order to avoid that kind of conflict.

Need I say more? What else about his service in Vietnam might he be lying about? He certainly has flip-flopped (there are those dreaded words again) about the atrocities he said he saw and took part in over there... Did he or didn't he see and do those things? And then there was the whole medal/ribbon throwing thing. I mean, you can get dizzy just listening to the guy trying to explain himself and his actions sometimes. But to lie about something like this in an attempt to make a political point is a bit much. He already had all those medals (at least officially) that one would think he wouldn't need to lie about his service like that. He seems to have made a habit of lying in the Senate (as witness to his anti-war testimony he gave to the same body in the early 1970s that he pretty much has not stood by) so why do we need to see him in the White House as it will likely be more of the same?

[BRussell]

I notice that this Cambodia thing is going to be the newest line against him. Apparently the Kerry campaign hasn't really disputed this, and so he probably wasn't in Cambodia. But his biography says that he was in Vietnam, an hour from Cambodia by boat. Well. So he was on a boat off Vietnam near the border of Cambodia. What a big liar. He probably shot himself to get that purple heart, too.

[7E7]

Originally posted by BRussell
I notice that this Cambodia thing is going to be the newest line against him. Apparently the Kerry campaign hasn't really disputed this, and so he probably wasn't in Cambodia. But his biography says that he was in Vietnam, an hour from Cambodia by boat. Well. So he was on a boat off Vietnam near the border of Cambodia. What a big liar. He probably shot himself to get that purple heart, too.

That was not what he said! And he told this lie while trying to influence the debate over an important piece of legislation that influenced foreign policy. That is dishonest and it is not something that should be dismissed that easily. And maybe one of the wounds he got was accidently self-inflicted as some of the Swift Boat veterans claim. Were you there to say it did not go down the way some of these guys who were there say that it did? When he get caught telling lies about his service than it makes people question other aspects of his service. That only makes sense.

[xterra48]

Another 527 has allready come out with a rip-off add (http://www.slate.com/id/2104939/), it seems to be a very popular style.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by 7E7
That was not what he said! And he told this lie while trying to influence the debate over an important piece of legislation that influenced foreign policy. That is dishonest and it is not something that should be dismissed that easily. And maybe one of the wounds he got was accidently self-inflicted as some of the Swift Boat veterans claim. Were you there to say it did not go down the way some of these guys who were there say that it did? When he get caught telling lies about his service than it makes people question other aspects of his service. That only makes sense. You're a stooge if you believe this barrage of character assasination . . . how can you regurgitate the non-stop slander machine word-for-word without even thinking about it?!

We all knew it would happen, It is the way that this dispicable mean-spirited crew of criminals have operated since they first got their dirty hands together: they did it to two other veteran/politicians who's records were equally distinguished, they destroyed them with lies and insinuations which are as dispicable as the non-stop balderdash that they are using today . . . doesn't that make you pause for a second?!

Each of the 'swift boat' vets that are now against Kerry have been, for a very long time, VERY big supporters of the GOP . . . not just in rah-rah support but in cash . . . which means that they have invested something and want a return . . . hell, they have invested their self-respect apparently . . . cause they sure don't have it anymore!!
And that is one thing that can't be returned to them no matter who wins.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by pfflam
You're a stooge if you believe this barrage of character assasination . . . how can you regurgitate the non-stop slander machine word-for-word without even thinking about it?!

We all knew it would happen, It is the way that this dispicable mean-spirited crew of criminals have operated since they first got their dirty hands together: they did it to two other veteran/politicians who's records were equally distinguished, they destroyed them with lies and insinuations which are as dispicable as the non-stop balderdash that they are using today . . . doesn't that make you pause for a second?!

Each of the 'swift boat' vets that are now against Kerry have been, for a very long time, VERY big supporters of the GOP . . . not just in rah-rah support but in cash . . . which means that they have invested something and want a return . . . hell, they have invested their self-respect apparently . . . cause they sure don't have it anymore!!
And that is one thing that can't be returned to them no matter who wins.

Here here!

[BRussell]

Originally posted by 7E7
That was not what he said! And he told this lie while trying to influence the debate over an important piece of legislation that influenced foreign policy. That is dishonest and it is not something that should be dismissed that easily. And maybe one of the wounds he got was accidently self-inflicted as some of the Swift Boat veterans claim. Were you there to say it did not go down the way some of these guys who were there say that it did? When he get caught telling lies about his service than it makes people question other aspects of his service. That only makes sense. Yeah, he said that he was in Cambodia at a specific time that he appears not to have been. He was near the border, and he probably only actually went into Cambodia later. But it's just hard to see why this is some kind of big lie - what political gain is there in saying that he was there at a specific time, when he was really only close to being there, and was actually there later?

[7E7]

Originally posted by pfflam
You're a stooge if you believe this barrage of character assasination . . . how can you regurgitate the non-stop slander machine word-for-word without even thinking about it?!

We all knew it would happen, It is the way that this dispicable mean-spirited crew of criminals have operated since they first got their dirty hands together: they did it to two other veteran/politicians who's records were equally distinguished, they destroyed them with lies and insinuations which are as dispicable as the non-stop balderdash that they are using today . . . doesn't that make you pause for a second?!

Each of the 'swift boat' vets that are now against Kerry have been, for a very long time, VERY big supporters of the GOP . . . not just in rah-rah support but in cash . . . which means that they have invested something and want a return . . . hell, they have invested their self-respect apparently . . . cause they sure don't have it anymore!!
And that is one thing that can't be returned to them no matter who wins.

Believe what you want but these guys are very credible if you actually take the time to listen to what they are saying. You are the stooge if you believe this is something that is politically motivated. They are now being threatened by the DNC's pack of lawyers who are using Nazi intimidation tactics. Their threats to this nation's media outlets are completely mischaracterizing (lying about) this group in their complaints to the various TV and radio stations. They claim that these guys did not serve on Kerry's boat as they claim (which they never have - they only claim to have served alongside them on other boats but still in a position to see what they are now claiming). You have NO PROOF that these guys are what you say you are. You are just regurgitating the DNC's talking points about this issue. Face it: Kerry and the DNC are scared of these guys because they are extremely credible and well-spoken. You want us all to believe that these 60 or so guys are all part of a vast conspiracy and they are willing to put their reputations on the line. I guess all 60 of these guys are lying and Kerry is the only guy that is telling the truth. So what about this Cambodia thing? I think it is becoming very clear that he lied about that. What do you have to say about this? I am sure you will come back with some lame explanation that either he was misquoted or he simply made a simple mistake. You cannot explain it that easily because he did not just say he was in Cambodia. He went on to develop this story further and it is not a situation where he got his countries mixed up. He lied. Deal with it.

It apparently is okay to trash some veterans who served their country but if you attack Kerry you are un-patriotic and un-American. These guys are signing affidavits testifying to what they saw. This is not like the bomb throwers on the left with their hit and run tactics. Kerry has not gone to the lengths this group has done to prove his side of the story. He has made statements about the war that he is not standing by and that makes a lot of people ask questions about his service. By doing so these gentlemen can be sued if their stories are proven to be false so why would they go to that length unless they actually are telling the truth? John Kerry has made his service in Vietnam the cornerstone of his campaign and is the basis for proving that he is fit to be President. I guess it is shame on us for asking questions about it when there are clearly a lot of unresolved issues regarding this apparently very important time in his life.

So cut your indignant rant and listen to what these guys have to say. Mean spirited criminals? Is this the way you treat those who serve their country? Oh, I guess it is okay if they are questioning Kerry's record. They earned the right to tell their side of the story. They were actually over there and in a position to comment on all this.

[xterra48]

-BRussell

Yeah and Bush claims to have been in the Air national guard!
We know for sure that Kerry:
Joined the armed services during the vietnam war
Served in Vietnam
saw action

We know for sure that Bush:
Joined the air national guard
may or may not have served
sat on his ass in the USA as opposed to actually being in a war half way around the world

[7E7]

Originally posted by BRussell
Yeah, he said that he was in Cambodia at a specific time that he appears not to have been. He was near the border, and he probably only actually went into Cambodia later. But it's just hard to see why this is some kind of big lie - what political gain is there in saying that he was there at a specific time, when he was really only close to being there, and was actually there later?

Apparently you have not been paying attention. The issue is that NOBODY is backing his story that he was ever in Cambodia - not even the illustrious "Band of Brothers" who were actually on his boat is supporting this lie. Swift boats did not serve there and were not permitted to enter Cambodia and there is no living commander that will support Kerry's ridiculous notion that he was sent to Cambodia. It is a lie - plain in simple. The Kerry campaign and the DNC is not responding to this allegation and it is clear why they have not. You cannot explain away a lie so they are simply hoping the story will go away. This is not a simple matter that he is mistaking the time period he was there: he simply never was there at any time. He certainly did not mention this story in the recent book that told his story about his service in Vietnam. Now why did he not mention it? He was only there for four months so one would think he would have talked about it since he told this impassioned story on the floor of the Senate. He simply was never there. I am waiting for a reporter to ask Kerry about this. How much do you want to bet that he won't answer the question?

[7E7]

Originally posted by xterra48
-BRussell

Yeah and Bush claims to have been in the Air national guard!
We know for sure that Kerry:
Joined the armed services during the vietnam war
Served in Vietnam
saw action

We know for sure that Bush:
Joined the air national guard
may or may not have served
sat on his ass in the USA as opposed to actually being in a war half way around the world

Kerry is the one making an issue of his service. Bush is running on his record as President and how he is fighting the war on terror. Kerry only wants to talk about Vietnam (at least what he wants us to know about that service rather than the whole story) rather than talk about his twenty years of service in the Senate. This is the reason why he feels he is qualified to be President. So there will be questions just as Bush has to answer questions about his actions. Deal with it.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by 7E7
Apparently you have not been paying attention. The issue is that NOBODY is backing his story that he was ever in Cambodia - not even the illustrious "Band of Brothers" who were actually on his boat is supporting this lie. Swift boats did not serve there and were not permitted to enter Cambodia and there is no living commander that will support Kerry's ridiculous notion that he was sent to Cambodia. It is a lie - plain in simple. The Kerry campaign and the DNC is not responding to this allegation and it is clear why they have not. You cannot explain away a lie so they are simply hoping the story will go away. This is not a simple matter that he is mistaking the time period he was there: he simply never was there at any time. He certainly did not mention this story in the recent book that told his story about his service in Vietnam. Now why did he not mention it? He was only there for four months so one would think he would have talked about it since he told this impassioned story on the floor of the Senate. He simply was never there. I am waiting for a reporter to ask Kerry about this. How much do you want to bet that he won't answer the question? Here's an anti-Kerry blog (http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2004/08/brinkley_on_ker.html) that cites excerpts from the book about his service. The blog says it contradicts Kerry's story that he was in Cambodia on Christmas 1968, which may be true, but 1) he was there at other times - one of his missions was to bring SEALs to Cambodia and 2) even on the Christmas in question, one of his crewmates said "we were getting close to Cambodia." You can read the actual excerpts for yourself in that link.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see this as a big story. Maybe he mis-remembered - after all, Bush said he watched the first plane hit the WTC live on TV, which is impossible. Or maybe he was close enough to the border that he figured he might as well have been there - remember he was in a boat, so he probably would never have gone on actual Cambodian land anyway.

I also just don't see the strategy here with keeping Kerry's Vietnam service an issue and attacking it. It's only going to backfire.

[BRussell]

Here's (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_08/004487.php) my favorite blogger Kevin Drum's post on this Cambodia! Lie! story. He provides lots of links to stories on the issue.
Conclusions? Beats me. Kerry has mentioned this story several times, so it's not a slip of the tongue. And it's plausible on its surface. Contrariwise, the evidence against him is pretty thin: not much more than the fact that no one else has verified it — and keep in mind that the Swift Vets guys are not exactly disinterested witnesses in this matter. What's more, since there is exactly zero in the way of documentary evidence one way or the other, it seems unlikely that this little teapot-sized tempest will ever be conclusively resolved. Which, I suppose, suits Kerry's detractors just fine.

[giant]

From WSJ

Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush
John Kerry saved my life. Now his heroism is being questioned.

BY JIM RASSMANN
Tuesday, August 10, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

I came to know Lt. John Kerry during the spring of 1969. He and his swift boat crew assisted in inserting our Special Forces team and our Chinese Nung soldiers into operational sites in the Cau Mau Peninsula of South Vietnam. I worked with him on many operations and saw firsthand his leadership, courage and decision-making ability under fire.

On March 13, 1969, John Kerry's courage and leadership saved my life.

While returning from a SEA LORDS operation along the Bay Hap River, a mine detonated under another swift boat. Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river, and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.

When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.

For his actions that day, I recommended John for the Silver Star, our country's third highest award for bravery under fire. I learned only this past January that the Navy awarded John the Bronze Star with Combat V for his valor. The citation for this award, signed by the Commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam, Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, read, "Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service." To this day I am grateful to John Kerry for saving my life. And to this day I still believe that he deserved the Silver Star for his courage.

It has been many years since I served in Vietnam. I returned home, got married, and spent many years as a deputy sheriff for Los Angeles County. I retired in 1989 as a lieutenant. It has been a long time since I left Vietnam, but I think often of the men who did not come home with us.

I am neither a politician nor an organizer. I am a retired police officer with a passion for orchids. Until January of this year, the only public presentations I made were about my orchid hobby. But in this presidential election, I had to speak out; I had to tell the American people about John Kerry, about his wisdom and courage, about his vision and leadership. I would trust John Kerry with my life, and I would entrust John Kerry with the well-being of our country.

Nobody asked me to join John's campaign. Why would they? I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans. I volunteered for his campaign because I have seen John Kerry in the worst of conditions. I know his character. I've witnessed his bravery and leadership under fire. And I truly know he will be a great commander in chief.

Now, 35 years after the fact, some Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Bush are suddenly lying about John Kerry's service in Vietnam; they are calling him a traitor because he spoke out against the Nixon administration's failed policies in Vietnam. Some of these Republican-sponsored veterans are the same ones who spoke out against John at the behest of the Nixon administration in 1971. But this time their attacks are more vicious, their lies cut deep and are directed not just at John Kerry, but at me and each of his crewmates as well. This hate-filled ad asserts that I was not under fire; it questions my words and Navy records. This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency, people who don't understand the bond of those who serve in combat.

As John McCain noted, the television ad aired by these veterans is "dishonest and dishonorable." Sen. McCain called on President Bush to condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush ad. Regrettably, the president has ignored Sen. McCain's advice.



Does this strategy of attacking combat Vietnam veterans sound familiar? In 2000, a similar Republican smear campaign was launched against Sen. McCain. In fact, the very same communications group, Spaeth Communications, that placed ads against John McCain in 2000 is involved in these vicious attacks against John Kerry. Texas Republican donors with close ties to George W. Bush and Karl Rove crafted this "dishonest and dishonorable" ad. Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam. They insult and defame all of us who served in Vietnam.

But when the noise and fog of their distortions and lies have cleared, a man who volunteered to serve his country, a man who showed up for duty when his country called, a man to whom the United States Navy awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, will stand tall and proud. Ultimately, the American people will judge these Swift Boat Veterans for Bush and their accusations. Americans are tired of smear campaigns against those who volunteered to wear the uniform. Swift Boat Veterans for Bush should hang their heads in shame.

Mr. Rassmann, a retired lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, served with the U.S. Army 5th Special Forces Group in Vietnam 1968-69
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005460

[7E7]

Originally posted by BRussell
Here's (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_08/004487.php) my favorite blogger Kevin Drum's post on this Cambodia! Lie! story. He provides lots of links to stories on the issue.

Like everything Kerry does in his life, we have multiple versions of what exactly he did during that time period. Does he ever stick with one story or one position? If he did, there would be a lot fewer questions about him. I have heard a lot of military folks weigh in on this (none whom were the Swifties) and they say it would be very highly unlikely that Kerry would have been there as Cambodia at that time was pretty much the the exclusive province of special operations units (SEALS/Green Berets/SOG) or CIA operatives - remember this is before Nixon ordered the invasion of Cambodia in 1970. The chance that a regular naval unit like Kerry's being there are extremely remote if not impossible. I don't hear the Kerry camp defending his Cambodia story so clearly they are hoping that it will just go away.

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by 7E7
Like everything Kerry does in his life, we have multiple versions of what exactly he did during that time period. Does he ever stick with one story or one position? If he did, there would be a lot fewer questions about him. Like everything Bush does in his life, we have multiple versions of what exactly he did during that time period. Does he ever stick with one story or one position? If he did, there would be a lot fewer questions about him.

At least he's got those military payroll documents to back up his claimed duty record..... oh, wait....

[pfflam]

here is another lengthy quote . . . from an op ed written by veterans against veteran's slander:

"As was shamefully done previously against decorated veterans like John McCain and Max Cleland, extreme right-wing groups such as the so-called 'Swift-Boat Veterans for Truth' are again spreading lies meant to discredit a decorated veteran. A veteran who volunteered for combat, who was brave enough not only to withstand the rigors of battle but then the equally difficult struggle to speak the truth about war's inevitable dark side: savagery, stupidity, recklessness, maiming, and death. These are the truths of every war -- those necessary and those avoidable; those just and those unjust.

"The slander about John Kerry's Purple Hearts and courage in command is fallacious at best and spuriously shameful. More, the attacks against Kerry's post-discharge protest of Vietnam represent a concerted attempt to prevent others from speaking the necessary truth of their experience by those too cowardly to admit their own share in our flawed humanity -- and war is nothing if not a showcase for our flaws. The old veterans' saying goes: If you haven't been there, you just don't know. But more, if you've been there and perpetuate the myths, you know even less.

"We are children of the Vietnam-Era: Its veterans, its troubles. In time, we became the veterans of our nation's 'Cable News Wars' in the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, and Iraq -- we know all-too-well the difficulties in communicating the ambiguous truths of our wars. But, as writers, we tried. We have each, in our own way, attempted to create a space where honest talk about war can occur without sanction: in the privacy of a book's pages. More than ever, our country needs an open dialogue about what war is, what happens there, and what it can do to the souls of those who serve, whether or not the original call to war was based on a noble purpose."

"'Swift-Boat Veterans for Truth' (a group without a single member who actually served in combat with Kerry) is attacking Kerry for, among other things, telling the truth about his war. If they succeed, hundreds of thousands of young soldiers and Marines will find it that much more difficult to tell their difficult stories -- whether heroic, tragic, barbaric, or all three -- when they return from Iraq and Afghanistan. So that another generation of veterans will not be rent by the difficult choice between living with a lie and feeling shamed for telling the truth, we ask you: do not listen to those who would distort a brave man's struggle. They pursue their own sad grudges and the paltry gains of partisan fervor, and if they become the loudest voice of "truth," all veterans will sustain the wound."


Signed,

Christian Bauman, US Army (Somalia, Haiti), author of The Ice Beneath You.
Andrew Exum, US Army (Afghanistan, Iraq), author of This Man's Army.
Joel Turnipseed, US Marine Corps (Persian Gulf War), author of Baghdad Express.
Buzz Williams, US Marine Corps (Persian Gulf War), author of Spare Parts.

[pfflam]

This is a good Jon Stewart (http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?reposid=/multimedia/tds/headlines/9016.html) on the vets


BTW, I saw the add air here in Wisconsin . . . it comes across as an incredibly mean-spirited attack add . . . I can't he;p but to think that this add will do harm to the Republican party . . . it is so obvious: it is outright character assasination without any other reason for being . . . is that the kind of people that we want to run our country?

[7E7]

Originally posted by pfflam
This is a good Jon Stewart (http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?reposid=/multimedia/tds/headlines/9016.html) on the vets


BTW, I saw the add air here in Wisconsin . . . it comes across as an incredibly mean-spirited attack add . . . I can't he;p but to think that this add will do harm to the Republican party . . . it is so obvious: it is outright character assasination without any other reason for being . . . is that the kind of people that we want to run our country?

Let's see here... What we have are 60 or so VIETNAM WAR VETERANS who are saying these things. Just because a guy is running as a Democrat for President does that mean others WHO WERE THERE IN A POSITION TO OBSERVE WHAT HAPPENED have no right to exercise their right to free speech and to tell their side of the story? These guys are putting their reputations on the line to say what they feel needs to be said. Why are you questioning their integrity like this? They fought for their country and earned the right to speak out. You don't know these guys at all at you are assuming that the GOP and the RNC are behind this. And there is nothing illegal about their ads - they are not telling you who to vote for. These are simply people who know John Kerry and want to tell the American people what they know about him. Let the American people make up their own minds about this. Are you scared that what they say might be true?

Why don't you speak out against these ads that these pro-Kerry groups are putting out slandering the President and comparing him to Hitler? At least the White House has said they will not question Kerry's Vietnam service. Has Bush EVER said anything about this controversy? But we all know Kerry is continuing to advance the BIG LIE that Bush misled and lied to the nation about Iraq and the WMD. The difference is the DNC and the Kerry campaign embrace these hate mongers and the Bush campaign remains above the fray simply by asking Kerry to clarify his positions which we all know change by the day and the hour. Kerry is the one that keeps wanting to talk about Vietnam while give no concrete plan how he will fight the war on terror. We need details and we aren't getting them. If he wants to continue to live in the past then that past will come back to haunt him because like everything else about Kerry there are more questions than answers.

[groverat]

At least the White House has said they will not question Kerry's Vietnam service. Has Bush EVER said anything about this controversy? But we all know Kerry is continuing to advance the BIG LIE that Bush misled and lied to the nation about Iraq and the WMD.

Because Bush lied and misled while he was president, not in the 1960s.

A big difference there.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by 7E7
Let's see here... What we have are 60 or so VIETNAM WAR VETERANS who are saying these things. Just because a guy is running as a Democrat for President does that mean others WHO WERE THERE IN A POSITION TO OBSERVE WHAT HAPPENED Oh, you mean they too ran up the hill in the heat of battle and watched Kerry 'shoot a teen in the back'?
no
They were on his boat when he turned it around under fire?
no
They were in Vietnam . . . they 'served with him' . . . its pathetic really.



Originally posted by 7E7
have no right to exercise their right to free speech and to tell their side of the story? These guys are putting their reputations on the line to say what they feel needs to be said.Do you mean their reputations as die-hard Republican party supporters and donation givers? Or do you mean, like Corsi, their reputations as extreme right-wing borderline nut-cases?

Originally posted by 7E7
Why are you questioning their integrity like this?What integrity?

Originally posted by 7E7
They fought for their country and earned the right to speak out.Which is exactly why they hate Kerry, because he spoke out against the Vietnam war, and like many reactionaries here, they feel that that is a betrayal of the military: hence their quotes that are taken out of that context and made to seem generalized about the entire man and his entire experience in the war

Originally posted by 7E7
These are simply people who know John Kerry and want to tell the American people what they know about him. No, they don't know John Kerry, and that is exactly the point . . . they are lying when they say that they do. Just like this doctor is clearly lying when he remembers an 'insignificant wound' from some Naval Officer in the middle of a long war filled with virtually innumerable wounded soldiers . . . 'integrity' my ass!!

Originally posted by 7E7
Are you scared that what they say might be true?Not at all, I know that they are a lying gang of partisan stooges working for the behind the scenes Rove attack machine . . . it is TYPICAL TYPICAL TYPICAL . . . they did exactly the same thing to two other highly respected soldier's reputations with regards to the war . . . one of them even gave up three limbs for his country and yet the idiot attack machine kept you fuucking moron ass-lickers from questioning it!!!

Originally posted by 7E7
Why don't you speak out against these ads that these pro-Kerry groups are putting out slandering the President and comparing him to Hitler?Yeah, why don't I . . . oh . . . oops, IIRC I did find them distasteful . . . (I'll look for a link)

Originally posted by 7E7
At least the White House has said they will not question Kerry's Vietnam service. Has Bush EVER said anything about this controversy? It is obvious that the Rove machine works through myriad sources, most of them not publicly acknowledged extensions of his system. Hell, look at the censorship campaign against Moore: RNC websites . . . before they realized people could tell that was who was behind them . . . then they rushed to switch site-hosts

Originally posted by 7E7
But we all know Kerry is continuing to advance the BIG LIE that Bush misled and lied to the nation about Iraq and the WMD. The difference is the DNC and the Kerry campaign embrace these hate mongers and the Bush campaign remains above the fray simply by asking Kerry to clarify his positions which we all know change by the day and the hour. Bush lied while in office, and the lie resulted in many deaths and an estrangement of America from the rest of the world (an unnecessary estrangement), he destroyed the credibility of the Office Of the President more so than any other President due to the seriousness of the blunder -foreign policy catastrophe vs domestic crime (Nixon) BJ (Clinton) Reagan's Iran-Contra is almost as bad, but it seems that he got away with it) Kerry did some heroic deeds followed by critique of the War, so long ago that politically motivated people know that they can distort it completely in order to smear him and there will be no way of factually pointing it out . . . kinda like the fact that loosing three limbs for your country can appear to not matter when smeared by Rove . .

ANd, the people who are upset that Bush lied to get us into a politically motivated war are not 'hate mongers' . . . quite the opposite (though naturally they hate people who create unnecessarily murderous situations) while the SVVFT are motivated by a politics that seems to truly thrive off of and love to generate, hate.

And as for Bush remaining 'above the fray' . . . HA! He is so neck deep in smear-campaigns it is absurd that you could even hint of 'innocence'!! Gimme a &^*&(^ break-!!
They ask for slogans --and his supporters, clearly only understand slogans-- for one reason and one reason only: they know that Kerry will answer in thoughtful responses, and thought does not lend itself to the attack analysis that is sure to follow: hence the notion of 'nuance' . . . sad really, that an C student, who mocks the very legacy system which allowed him to get into YALE, can make the appearance of willful stupidity, in the form of slogans, seem like a virtue.

[7E7]

Originally posted by groverat
Because Bush lied and misled while he was president, not in the 1960s.

A big difference there.

And you have ACTUAL proof of this? Saying that he did does not make it so...

[7E7]

I was watching an interview with former USMC Col. Bill Cowan and he made a good point that often it is easier for somebody not directly in your squad (or in Kerry's case on the same boat) to see what actually is going on in a combat situation because perhaps they are not engaged in as much hostile fire. Therefore they may be in a better position to observe the actions of the people who are in the fight. And swift boats did tend to patrol in groups - not as single boat patrols. I don't imagine some of you out there were aware of that...

As for Mr. Corsi, he was not one of the swift boat veterans so I might give Pfflam that one. But is he saying that EVERY one of these veterans is a die-hard Republican and donation giver? That would seem a bit odd that such a high percentage of these guys would be so political as to stake their personal reputations on this thing. But we all know how big conspiracy theorists you guys can be. What I don't see here are people like Michael Moore who is as partisan a bomb thrower as there is today and a billionaire like George Soros who is willing to spend a huge chunk of his personal wealth simply to defeat Bush. These are the people whose motives should really be questioned. Moore clearly has no problem with passing off lies as the truth even if he has to fabricate stories to prove his point. And Soros is another story all together. He is downright scary and his background is worth a closer look - perhaps when we have more time to delve into his story. I don't see the same thing happening in the case of these veterans. These are AVERAGE AMERICANS who see Kerry differently because they were there to see him in action. Check the records on these guys if you must. You will find they were in Vietnam when they said they were and they served in the unit they said they did. And besides, it would be very interesting to me to find that all these guys are so wealthy that they have big bucks to throw at Republicans running for office. That totally goes against the grain especially since most anti-war activists claim that it is the poor that are sent to the fight. Are you saying that this Navy unit by some strange quirk of fate just happened to be populated disproportionately by people who all ended up turning into wealthy Republicans later in life? Sometimes you need to look at the DNC's talking points with a more critical eye because often they make little or no sense at all.

If Kerry has that much integrity than why does he not stand by his anti-war statements anymore? Why has he bought up the publishing rights of his anti-war book at considerable cost and is steadfastly not allowing it to be re-published? You will never convince me of what a stand-up guy he was for speaking out. He tarnished the reputation of his fellow veterans by spreading a pack of lies that have never been supported by the facts. And many of the allegations made in the book were made by people who never even served in Vietnam. We should not have to go and spend a few hundred dollars on eBay to get a copy of his book to read. Does that not make you wonder whether he was being truthful or not about his service and his experience in Vietnam? He clearly does not want the American people to see it because it is as bogus a book that has ever been written about that war and there is nothing in there that would make the average American want to elect him as President.

I also heard an interview with Dr. Letson (the physician who treated Kerry's wound) and he said that what made this particular incident memorable was the insignificance of the wound combined with several of Kerry's crew who mentioned to them that Kerry's ambition was to be President someday. I am sure many people would agree that would make an incident like that memorable if nothing more than because of the sheer arrognace that statement imparts.


By the way I saw John McCain stumping for Bush this week so let's not get this all out of proportion. He knows Bush was not the one who attacked his integrity although I will never understand how McCain has forgiven Kerry for taking the actions he did denouncing the war while he was being held captive in Hanoi. Kerry's treason made McCain's life a living hell because the NVA used Kerry's statements against him and made it easier for them to break the will and spirit of those held prisoner. In fact Kerry is considered by the North Vietnamese to be a great hero to them and one of the big reasons why they ended up winning the war.

And let's not make Karl Rove out to be some mythical figure. He is just another political operative like a James Carville, Paul Begala and Terry McAuliffe. He is no better or worse than any of these guys. The DNC is being heavy-handed also in threatening any media outlet who runs the Swift Boat Veterans' ad. Even their complaint against the Swifties is full of lies and inaccuracies.

And we also need to get off the "Bush lied" line of argument. Every official investigation into this showed definitively that he did not lie and there was no intent to mislead anybody. You can believe what you want but the facts prove otherwise. You can repeat this fiction all you want but it will always remain some warped private fantasy for you guys. Oh, I guess it is okay to smear some veterans but if they are a Vietnam veteran and a DEMOCRAT they are never to be spoken ill of. I am not going to lose sleep if guys like Kerry or Cleland get roughed up a bit - they are politicians after all and this is what they signed up for. Politics is a blood sport and is not for the faint of heart. But these other guys are just regular people who have regular lives and real jobs that extend beyond the insular world of Washington politics. There is more to living in this world than being a career politician and living life off the public dole.

What is meant by the phrase politically motivated war? How so? Are you another one of these idiots who think it was all about oil just like Afghanistan was all about the building of some fictional pipeline that will never be built because it was never any part of the reason why we invaded in the first place? Geez, you guys have so many crazy and paranoid ideas that it is a wonder how the white coats haven't swooped down and grabbed you already. "It's true! It's all true!" I hear you cackle with a crazed stare on your face as they place you into the back of the rubber truck...

There is so much slime coming from the left I cannot believe that you aren't aware of it by now. If you want to know what character assassination really is just look at the ads from MoveOn.org. And what of Kerry's comments about Bush's actions in the classroom on 9/11? And this is coming from a guy who admitted that he and his colleagues in the Congress were paralyzed to the point that they could not think for 45 MINUTES because they were so stunned and shocked. They actually had to be told to evacuate the building! They were actually waiting to be told what to do next! Now that type of behavior is consistent for a Democrat - they need to be told by the government what to do. But he seems to have forgotten that he is part of the government. Who is supposed to tell the government what to do? Hmmm... To me that comment from Kerry was as slimy a cheap shot as I have ever seen. The teacher in the classroom that day (a lifelong Democrat BTW) said she found Bush's demeanor to be entirely apparopriate and admirable. He stayed calm and did not panic - which to me is a sign of a great leader. In fact, she plans to vote for Bush this time around because she was so impressed with him that day...

Thoughtful responses from Kerry? How can you say that when he never makes any sense? I get tired of you so-called intellectuals who think that being President requires a member of Mensa. Give me a break! The last thing we need is a guy who thinks about problems all day but never gets around to doing anything about any of them because they need to study the issue just a little longer. Bush is not stupid and if you have not figured that out by now then perhaps you aren't as smart as you think you are. If Kerry was so damn smart and so damn thoughtful than why does he change his positions so often? You would think that all the time he spends formulating an opinion that he would have gotten the right answer by now. Every sign shows that Kerry would be a pathetic leader because he cannot make decisions with any clarity or conviction. He is definitely not what we need when it comes to the war on terror. By the time he decides to do anything we won't have enough body bags to go around. This is serious business and it needs to be handled by serious people who are willing to make tough decisions and stand by them. Kerry has never shown that ability and at his age I don't think he is going to start now.

[Northgate]

Since we're splitting hairs about service and dishonesty, I thought I'd post this for everyone's review:

I just want to point out, for about the hundredth time, that even aside from the whole awol/desertion dishonesty, there is absolutely no dispute that Bush, in his autobiography, lied about his service while in TANG.

I'm sure this will be on Wolf Blitzer's show this evening. NOT!

From Conason:

George W. Bush lied about his military service record. The lie can be found in his own 1999 campaign autobiography (as written by Karen Hughes), where he dramatically describes his experience as a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. On page 34 of A Charge to Keep, Mr. Bush claims that, after learning to fly the F-102 fighter jet, he was turned down for Vietnam duty because "had not logged enough flight hours" to qualify for a combat assignment. Before going on to recall the "challenging moments" that involved close formation drills at night during poor weather, he adds: "I continued flying with my unit for the next several years."

Bush only continued to fly for 22 months. But you want see this little fact repeated over and over again on the so-called liberal media, will you?

[addabox]

Originally posted by 7E7
[Unbelievably long restatement of every Republican talking point to date without any apparent ability to recognize political slander, garden variety smear tactics, mindless right-wing boosterism, and highly dubious theorizing. [/B]

Whatever. Just for example, Kerry didn't attack Bush's performance in the school room on 9/11. He was asked point blank what he would have done, and he replied that he would have excused himself and left. Which is what pretty much any sane person would have done.

[pfflam]

Bush slams 'nuance' with monosyllabic sound-bytes . . .. the audience eats it up:

But if anyone cared to read, his nuggets are easily shown false.
The problem is, of course, that those who like Bush either don't care or will only listen to sound-bytes:

Bush's slippery spin on Kerry's Iraq views

For a week now, George W. Bush has been delighting his audiences with a new riff on John Kerry's Iraq views. "Almost two years after he voted for the war in Iraq, and almost 220 days after switching positions to declare himself the antiwar candidate, my opponent has found a new nuance," Bush says. "He now agrees it was the right decision to go into Iraq."

Even by this White House's sorry standards for truthfulness, the Bush bit on Kerry is extraordinary: It's false four times over. Let's break it down.

"Almost two years after he voted for the war in Iraq . . ." John Kerry never "voted for the war on Iraq." In October 2002, he voted for a resolution that authorized Bush to use force in Iraq if -- and only if -- the president determined it necessary to defend U.S. national security and to enforce United Nations resolutions.

Although he chooses to ignore it now, Bush certainly seemed to understand the conditional nature of the Senate vote when it was made. The day before the Senate voted, Bush said the resolution meant that the Iraqi government "must disarm and comply with existing U.N. resolutions, or it will be forced to comply." The day the Senate voted, Bush said the Senate had authorized "the use of force, if necessary." While Bush may have known that he was going to invade Iraq no matter what, that's not what Bush said, it's not what the resolution said, and it's not what Kerry voted for.


" . . . and almost 220 days after switching positions to declare himself the antiwar candidate . . . " Kerry never declared himself "the antiwar candidate." Bush is referring to an appearance Kerry made on "Hardball" on Jan. 6, 2004. Chris Matthews asked Kerry, "Do you think you belong in that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war? The way it's been fought? Along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean, and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the antiwar candidates?" Kerry's response: "I am. Yes. In the sense that I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes. Absolutely."

The Bush-Cheney campaign seems to understand that the question Matthews actually asked and the answer Kerry actually gave don't support their flip-flop claim. Thus, when the campaign released a video on Kerry's "flip-flops" on Iraq, it edited down the exchange so it looks like this. Matthews: "Are you one of the antiwar candidates?" Kerry: "I am. Yes." Last night on "Hardball," Bush strategist Matthew Dowd defended the campaign's editing efforts, telling Matthews: “You asked John Kerry a yes or no question. And he said ‘yes, absolutely.’”

Matthews didn't buy it. “Is the president going to keep saying that something that was said on this show wasn‘t said? Would you like to have your sentences cut down like to a third of their length and let people decide on the first three or four words what you meant by the 20 words? I think you guys should consider taking this off your loop. I think the president ought to be shown this tape so he knows what he‘s talking about, instead of having it fed to him by somebody who doesn‘t show [him the] full sentence.”


" . . . my opponent has found a new nuance . . ." There is nothing "new" about Kerry's position on Iraq. Bush is referring here to Kerry's Aug. 9 statement in which he said that, even knowing what he knows today, he would have voted in favor of the October 2002 resolution, but that he would have used the authority it gave the president "very differently" than the way Bush did.

That's almost exactly what Kerry has said about his vote any number of times before. In an interview in Salon in May, for example, Kerry said: "My vote was the right vote. If I had been president, I would have wanted that authority to leverage the behavior that we needed. But I would have used it so differently than the way George Bush did." When Kerry made his statement at the Grand Canyon, at least some of the media recognized it for what it was: nothing new. CNN headlined the story: "Kerry stands by 'yes' vote on Iraq war." NPR said: "Kerry Reaffirms Iraq Stance at Grand Canyon Stop." That doesn't help Bush's flip-flop charge, so Kerry's consistent statement on Iraq somehow becomes a "nuance" that's "new."


"He now agrees it was the right decision to go into Iraq." Kerry has not said that it was "the right decision to go into Iraq." Kerry said on Aug. 9 that he thought his vote on the 2002 resolution was the right one because it gave Bush "the right authority for the president to have. " Kerry said that Bush has used the authority in the wrong way. While one of Kerry's top national security advisors has said that Kerry "in all probability" would have gone to war in Iraq eventually, Kerry hasn't said that himself. Rather, Kerry says that Bush rushed into war "on faulty intelligence" and "without a plan to win the peace," that he misled the country "about how he would go to war," and that he has failed to persuade other countries to join the war effort.


Will any of this matter to the Bush-Cheney campaign? Probably not. While Bush and Cheney finally seem to have stopped spreading the phony claim that Kerry is the "most liberal" member of the U.S. Senate, the White House still hasn't condemned the misleading "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" ad that its backers are running. And on "Hardball" last night, Dowd gave no indication that the White House plans to back down from its slippery spin on Kerry's Iraq views.

[addabox]

Excellent post.

Let's all join hands and say it together: Kerry voted to give the president the authority to go to war, if all else failed. He still thinks it was the right thing to do to vote for give the president authority.

He also believes that the president abused that authority by not allowing the process of inspections and cooperation to move forward. History has shown that belief to be sound.

While we're at it, Kerry voted for a version of an appropriations bill, and against a different version. That is absolutely standard operating procedure in the Senate. Bush himself threatened to veto a version of the same bill.

Got it? The whole Kerry flip-flopper, doesn't know what he thinks about the war, changes his mind all the time slur is BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT.

Anyone posting here that wants to continue to pretend that they "can't follow" all of Kerry's "reversals" are either: too stupid to follow a simple chain of reasoning, too cynical to admit the obvious, too partisan to pay attention, or all three.

I'm guessing, in most cases, here abouts, it's all three.

[Towel]

Originally posted by pfflam
Bush slams 'nuance' with monosyllabic sound-bytes . . .. the audience eats it up:

But if anyone cared to read, his nuggets are easily shown false.
The problem is, of course, that those who like Bush either don't care or will only listen to sound-bytes: Is that story off your blog, pfflam? Can you post a link? I'd like to see your other stuff.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by Towel
Is that story off your blog, pfflam? Can you post a link? I'd like to see your other stuff. Sorry . . . didn't mean to take credit I jus didn't list my source: salon.com war room.

[addabox]

Speaking of blogs, here's a great "bumper sticker" explanation of Kerry's Iraq position from The Daily Howler: (http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh081704.shtml)

"I voted to give Bush the authority. Then Bush fucked it up"

Which comes at the end of a discussion about why this simple concept is so hard for the Washington press corps to grasp.

[sammi jo]

Who would have thunk it.... here we have democrats criticizing republicans for avoiding Vietnam.....and republicans criticizing democrats for volunteering...

:???:

:wow:

:grumble:

[sammi jo]

And meanwhile, check out this latest anti-Kerry ad (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5737787/site/newsweek/)

:lol:

[pfflam]

Even O'Rielly finds teh Swift vets' add to be a disgrace and thinks that it might backfire: HERE (http://www.billoreilly.com/currentarticle) :wow: :wow:

[FormerLurker]

The lesson here is that blind partisanship is not an attribute. No person or candidate is all good or all bad. In America today, with both sides peddling lies and defamation and spin, it is alarmingly difficult just to get simple facts on which to base a responsible vote.
GASP
I.... agree..... with...... Bill O'Reilly?
:wow:

[faust9]

Originally posted by pfflam
Even O'Rielly finds teh Swift vets' add to be a disgrace and thinks that it might backfire: HERE (http://www.billoreilly.com/currentarticle) :wow: :wow:

Ahhhh!!! Cats and dogs living together! Mass hysteria!!

[giant]

So the washington post is saying that one of swiftie's own military records contradict his attack on kerry.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13267-2004Aug18?language=printer

[dmz]

You guys are KILLING me.

Why are any of you schilling for an massivley corrupt system of political swine?


Pure and simple truth on Kerry:

1. He gets major points for getting shot at. Anyone out on patrol in hostile territory has to have at least one Big Hairy One if not a full pair. Get over it.

2. He is a rich kid who knowlingly chiseled his experience for political gain---then had a major consience attack---but since he's a political swine, hey, what the hell, focus groups like the war hero thing so he pushes that angle.

End of Story! Go argue on another thread. Don't any of you people know a real live politician?!! Stop living in this pollyanna pancea!


[EDIT]

Instead of government we had a stage
Instead of ideas, a prima donna's rage
Instead of help we were given a crowd
She didn't say much, but she said it loud

[giant]

Kerry speaks out:
Kerry said the ads, aired by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, are funded by a Republican contributor from Texas

"They're a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the president won't denounce them tells you everything you need to know -- he wants them to do his dirty work," he told a cheering crowd at a meeting of the International Association of Fire Fighters in Boston.

"Of course, the president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: Bring it on!" Kerry challenged.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/19/kerry.attackads/index.html

[giant]

New ad (top one) (http://www.johnkerry.com/tv/)

[dmz]

"Politicians are the same all over, they promise to build a bridge, even where there is no river."

-Nikita Khrushchev

[pfflam]

Originally posted by dmz
You guys are KILLING me.
Pure and simple truth on Kerry:

1. He gets major points for getting shot at. Anyone out on patrol in hostile territory has to have at least one Big Hairy One if not a full pair. Get over it.

2. He is a rich kid who knowlingly chiseled his experience for political gain---then had a major consience attack---but since he's a political swine, hey, what the hell, focus groups like the war hero thing so he pushes that angle.
Actually, he wasn't a rich kid, he was a diplomat's kid, and his father wasn't wealthy . . . he was networked though, to politically important people: hence the boat-ride with JFK.

[dmz]

Originally posted by pfflam
Actually, he wasn't a rich kid, he was a diplomat's kid, and his father wasn't wealthy . . . he was networked though, to politically important people: hence the boat-ride with JFK.

sorry, bad choice of words---"privileged" would have been better

[pfflam]

Originally posted by dmz
sorry, bad choice of words---"privileged" would have been better "privileged" what . . . to have known and learned from people that one should be lucky in life to be able to see in person?!?!

[faust9]

Originally posted by dmz
You guys are KILLING me.

Why are any of you schilling for an massivley corrupt system of political swine?


Pure and simple truth on Kerry:

1. He gets major points for getting shot at. Anyone out on patrol in hostile territory has to have at least one Big Hairy One if not a full pair. Get over it.

2. He is a rich kid who knowlingly chiseled his experience for political gain---then had a major consience attack---but since he's a political swine, hey, what the hell, focus groups like the war hero thing so he pushes that angle.

End of Story! Go argue on another thread. Don't any of you people know a real live politician?!! Stop living in this pollyanna pancea!


[EDIT]

Instead of government we had a stage
Instead of ideas, a prima donna's rage
Instead of help we were given a crowd
She didn't say much, but she said it loud

As usual DMZ I'm befuddled by your response? What would you have everyone do? Not talk about political issues? Just blindly accept the accounts of one political faction while ignoring the others? What would you have us do? Seriously. Your post is completly irrevelent to any part of this thread--as usual. How 'bout we all forget science, math, physics, geology, etc and return ourselves to a feudal era? How's that?

<sarcasm>DMZ: Guys, guys your talking about (GASP)politics(GASP)!!! Your supporting a corrupt system which I've yet to offer a solution for. Your supporting either of two parties. Where's the third party? I demand a third party!!!<sarcasm>

What would you propose everyone do? Don't wax philosophical and dodge the question either. You tend to do that in 99 out of 100 posts. Answer the question in as direct a manner as you possibly can. What would you propose we all do?

Have fun, enjoy.

[dmz]

Originally posted by faust9
What would you have everyone do? Not talk about political issues?


Well faust9, let me put it this way: with thinking like yours, the American Rebellion would have never happened.


(Part of the cycle of violence that traps abused victims is the vicitim's feeling of helpless at the end of each cycle.)

[faust9]

Originally posted by dmz
Well faust9, let me put it this way: with thinking like yours, the American Rebellion would have never happened.


(Part of the cycle of violence that traps abused victims is the vicitim's feeling of helpless at the end of each cycle.)

What the hell are you talking about?!?

[pfflam]

Originally posted by dmz
Well faust9, let me put it this way: with thinking like yours, the American Rebellion would have never happened.


(Part of the cycle of violence that traps abused victims is the vicitim's feeling of helpless at the end of each cycle.) :???: :err: :\

[midwinter]

Originally posted by dmz
Well faust9, let me put it this way: with thinking like yours, the American Rebellion would have never happened.


(Part of the cycle of violence that traps abused victims is the vicitim's feeling of helpless at the end of each cycle.)

That makes no sense whatsoever.

[dmz]

Nevermind, this was my mistake.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by dmz
Nevermind, this was my mistake. Apparently.

[FormerLurker]

Definitely not the most elegant backpedal I've ever seen, but still amusing... and that is after all why I still hang out here.