Swift Boat Vets for Truth? Or Political Gain?


PDA






Ransom
August 4, 2004, 07:07 AM
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp

Although the men quoted above are often identified as "John Kerry's shipmates," only one of them, Steven Gardner, actually served under Lt. Kerry's command on a Swift boat. The other men who served under Kerry's command continue to speak positively of him:

"In 1969, I was Sen. Kerry's gun mate atop of the Swift boat in Vietnam. And I just wanted to let everyone know that, contrary to all the rumors that you might hear from the other side, Sen. Kerry's blood is red, not blue. I know, I've seen it.

"If it weren't for Sen. John Kerry, on the 28th of February 1969, the day he won the Silver Star . . . you and I would not be having this conversation. My name would be on a long, black wall in Washington, D.C. I saw this man save my life."3

— Fred Short

"I can still see him now, standing in the doorway of the pilothouse, firing his M-16, shouting orders through the smoke and chaos . . . Even wounded, or confronting sights no man should ever have to see, he never lost his cool.

I had to sit on my hands [after a firefight], I was shaking so hard . . . He went to every man on that boat and put his arm around them and asked them how they're doing. I've never had an officer do that before or since. That's the mettle of the man, John Kerry."3

— David Alston

"What I saw back then [in Vietnam] was a guy with genuine caring and leadership ability who was aggressive when he had to be. What I see now is a guy who's not afraid to tackle tough issues. And he knows what the consequences are of putting people's kids in harm's way."2

— James Wasser
Many of Kerry's Vietnam commanders and fellow officers also continue to speak positively of him:

Navy records, fitness reports by Kerry's commanders and scores of interviews with Swift boat officers and crewmen depict a model officer who fought aggressively in river ambushes and won the respect of many of his crewmates and commanders, even as his doubts about the war grew.

"I don't like what he said after the war," said Adrian Lonsdale, who commanded Kerry for three months in 1969. "But he was a good naval officer."2


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

"I don't know what conclusions you can draw about someone's ability to lead from their combat experience, but John's service was commendable," said James J. Galvin, a former Swift boat officer . . . "He played by the same rules we all did."1

How well all of these men knew John Kerry is questionable, and discrepancies between how some of them described Kerry thirty-five years ago and how they describe him today suggest that their opinions are largely based upon political differences rather than objective assessments of Kerry's military record. For example, Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman is quoted above, yet the Los Angeles Times reported:

. . . Hoffman and Kerry had few direct dealings in Vietnam. A Los Angeles Times examination of Navy archives found that Hoffman praised Kerry's performance in cabled messages after several river skirmishes.


Interesting read. Apparently even being a vet is open for political games.

If you enjoyed reading about "Swift Boat Vets for Truth? Or Political Gain?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MarkDido
August 4, 2004, 10:45 AM
Sorry...

I'm a Veteran of both Vietnam and the first Gulf War.

I wouldn't stop to pee on John Kerry if he was on fire.

Leatherneck
August 4, 2004, 10:56 AM
He went to every man on that boat and put his arm around them and asked them how they're doing. I've never had an officer do that before or since. Then Alston didn't have very good leaders.

But yeah--Kerry does seem to love close contact with other guys :scrutiny:

TC
TFL Survivor

JPL
August 4, 2004, 11:14 AM
It's been joked that during the 1960s campaign that enough of PT-109 JFK's "shipmates" came forward to man an aircraft carrier.

Swamprabbit
August 4, 2004, 11:15 AM
In this age of politics, I take ALL stories like this with less than a grain of salt. Too many of today's politicians started their childhood with the ambitions of being a political person someday and lived their whole lives in preparation for it. That is why we get to see pictures and videos of these guys in action whereas how many other soldiers, sailors, etc. liver out their military career without ever a photograph being taken.

So, regardless of whether the writer is taking my side or not, I simply just don't trust any of it.

halvey
August 4, 2004, 11:56 AM
I wouldn't stop to pee on John Kerry if he was on fire. That's funny!:)

0007
August 4, 2004, 02:40 PM
There's a website - www.swiftvets.com - that has some interesting info on all this.

dadman
August 4, 2004, 05:31 PM
Other points to consider:

What Kerry Really Did in Vietnam (http://counterpunch.com/cockburn07292004.html)
From the article:
When the Green Berets and SEALs opened fire, the South Vietnamese soldiers jumped the wall and at least ten of the women and children were killed. Meanwhile, against orders, Kerry had again left his boat and attached himself to the Nung and was, by his own words, "shooting and blowing things up". One of the Nung threwew a grenade into a hut which turned out to be filled with sacks of rice. Kerry got grains of rice and some bits of metal debris embedded in his ass, the most severe wounds he sustained in Vetnam.

A former assistant secretary of defense and Fletcher School of Diplomacy professor,W. Scott Thompson, recalled a conversation with the late Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt Jr. that clearly had a slightly different take on Kerry's recollection of their discussions: "[T]he fabled and distinguished chief of naval operations,Admiral Elmo Zumwalt,told me --30 years ago when he was still CNO [chief naval officer in Vietnam] that during his own command of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam,just prior to his anointment as CNO, young Kerry had created great problems for him and the other top brass,by killing so many non-combatant civilians and going after other non-military targets. "We had virtually to straitjacket him to keep him under control", the admiral said. "Bud" Zumwalt got it right when he assessed Kerry as having large ambitions --but promised that his career in Vietnam would haunt him if he were ever on the national stage."


Fog of War (http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2004-07-29/feature.html)
A group of veterans says John Kerry stretches the truth about his Vietnam service. Who can you believe? Who knows?

Shortly after forming, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) hired a former FBI agent named Tom Rupprath, who is now a private investigator in Rockwall, to locate swift boat vets and to dig up whatever he could regarding Kerry's service record. (Rupprath did not return calls from the Dallas Observer.) In addition to criticizing Kerry for what he said about veterans and war crimes, SBVT has publicly levied some serious allegations about Kerry's recollection of his time in Vietnam and about how his medals (three Purple Hearts for being wounded in combat and a Bronze Star and a Silver Star for valor) were achieved.

pinblaster
August 4, 2004, 07:06 PM
I don't care one way or the other about what Kerry did or did not do in Viet Nam . He has proven himself to be a phony and IMO he is FOS . I'm voting for Bush .

madcowburger
August 4, 2004, 07:46 PM
I don't care what Kerry did or didn't do in Vietnam 35-plus years ago either. This election ought not to be some sort of referendum on Vietnam.

However, if people are going to cast aspersions on Kerry's actual military service record, they'd better be able to back up their charges. Otherwise it could backfire, big-time.

I wouldn't vote for Kerry for dogcatcher if he bribed me to.

Whether I'll vote for Bush or not depends 100 percent on what he does or doesn't do about the AWB. If the AWB dies a quiet, natural, long-overdue death on schedule -- if I find myself a slightly freer American on September 14 -- I *may* vote for Bush.

Otherwise, I'll vote Libertarian again, like I did it 1992 (over the same general issue -- the RKBA ), or not at all. I'm not far from concluding that the usefulness of the ballot box is nearly done, and that the time may be coming to open up other boxes.

I want to live in a free country, like an American is supposed to. I want to be able to come and go as I please, without particularly having to answer to anybody or explain my business to anybody. I want the full, free exercise of *all* my rights, *all* the time, in deed not in word, in practice not in theory. I'm an American, not an Iraqi, and I don't want to be treated like an Iraqi (or worse) right here in my own country.

I want the AWB gone for good. I want the 1989 import ban gone for good. I want the 1986 "freeze" on legally transferable (to "civilians") Class III weapons gone for good. I want the Gun Control Act of 1986 gone for good. I want the National Firearms Act of 1934 gone for good.

I want all these "alphabet soup" armed federal agencies -- including the IRS -- reined in or better yet abolished.

I want the Bill of Rights, not the will of the politicians currently in office, enforced.

This country seems more like East Germany or the former Soviet Union every day, and I'm sick of it. I want my free country back.

MCB

DigMe
August 4, 2004, 07:54 PM
It seems from a couple of recent issues that the people of Snopes have shown at least a slight liberal bias in the way they view things. I don't know that I can count on them for objective info like I used.

brad cook

AZRickD
August 5, 2004, 12:47 AM
Hannity & Colmes will show a rather biting political commercial produced by some anti-Kerry vets. Included in the scene that I saw was the doctor who treated Kerry's first 'wound' which garnered him a Purple Heart.

They showed some teasing snippets tonite.

Yikes.

It is brutal.

Rick

Rebar
August 5, 2004, 12:59 AM
This is the ad:
http://www.swiftvets.com/

Brutal, indeed.

madcowburger
August 5, 2004, 01:21 AM
It better be true, and provable, is all I can say.

I despise Kerry, but I don't want something like this blowing up in my face.

MCB

AZRickD
August 5, 2004, 01:55 AM
Not much on details.

My guess is that they are hoping it will show in a newsy sort of way (free of charge), and then get the chance to be interviewed to tell the rest of the story.

Rick

Hkmp5sd
August 5, 2004, 06:09 AM
I don't care what Kerry did or didn't do in Vietnam 35-plus years ago either. This election ought not to be some sort of referendum on Vietnam.
If Kerry is going to use his time in Vietnam to demonstrate his leadership skills, then his actions 35 years ago have a great impact on this election. Not really a referendum on Vietnam, just a single person's supposed actions. Seems like more eye witnesses disagree with Kerry's version than there are that agree. He's even using vets that didn't serve under him in his commercials to tell how great he was.

Sergeant Bob
August 5, 2004, 06:30 AM
He is using his Vietnam record as part of his campaign, therefore, it should be open to scrutiny, just like anything else.

Ransom
August 5, 2004, 07:06 AM
He is using his Vietnam record as part of his campaign, therefore, it should be open to scrutiny, just like anything else.

Scrutiny yes. But some of these things seem completely fabricated or at least misleading. The Swift Vets claim that only one of John Kerry's former shipmates supports him. But none of these people actually served under him. In fact, all but one of the men who served under John Kerry support him fully.


http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2004/8/4/0311/48764/6?mode=alone;showrate=1#6

Here are the 10 crewmates who served with Kerry in Vietnam. All but Steve Gardner support John Kerry and stood with him as he made his speech to the DNC. (except Tom Belodeau who is deceased .

You cant deny that the Swift Vets are trying to make it look like only one man that served under Kerry supports him when the truth is the exact opposite. The men from Swift Vets for Truth either did not serve under him or hell, didnt even know him. Most of their comments seem to be born of the things John Kerry did after the war that they disagree with.

If I'm going to listen to someones opinion about what John Kerry did in vietnam I'm going to listen to the guys who were there with him every day serving under him.

Rebar
August 5, 2004, 07:53 AM
Do you or do you not support Kerry releasing his full military records?

Ransom
August 5, 2004, 08:01 AM
Do you or do you not support Kerry releasing his full military records?

Didnt he already do that?

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html

MP5
August 5, 2004, 08:29 AM
Too bad Dubya hasn't been forthcoming about his iffy service records from the beginning.

Bartholomew Roberts
August 5, 2004, 08:59 AM
Didnt he already do that?

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john...ry_records.html

Apparently not since there are no evaluations/fitreps nor medical records listed in those documents. Both of those would be directly relevant to the charges made by this group and neither have been released by the Kerry campaign to my knowledge.

Both Bush and Kerry's former competitor Wesley Clark released evals and medical records to the press as part of their military records as well.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/04/20/kerry_refuses_to_release_more_records/

There is also the issue that at least some of those records are flat-out wrong. In one of them, Kerry claims to be skipper of PCF 94 during a combat action that actually occured before Kerry even arrived in-country.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/04/23/discrepancies_noted_in_kerrys_record/

OF
August 5, 2004, 09:14 AM
He is using his Vietnam record as part of his campaignPart of it? It's the entire campaign!

If these Swift Boat vets turn out to be disingenuous or worse, it will be unfortunate. Kerry is slime and can be taken down without lies or propaganda. The guy is a sitting duck, we don't need to take the low road to destroy him.

That said, I know someone who knows Kerry very very well, personally, and he's 'not impressed' to put it extremely mildy. And the Swift Boat vets stories are not out of line with his impressions. Kerry is scum, always has been scum, is completely without honor and totally untrustworthy. He is self-serving and has no convictions of any kind. He has a lust for power that is overriding and has no sense of loyalty, duty or honor. He will say and do anything to reach his personal goals and is the very definition of 'elitist'. There is no lie he will not tell, no back he will not stab, no position he will not abandon on his quest.

He is Hillary without the sense of social mission.

- Gabe

Rebar
August 5, 2004, 09:33 AM
Bush has released all available military records, even though he's not running on his military record. Kerry has not released all his records, and is running almost solely based on his.

Clinton could get away with attacking the messenger instead of addressing the issue. Kerry cannot. These veterans are just as, if not more highly decorated, then Kerry, and their statements should be taken seriously.

There are multiple eye witnesses that contradict Kerry's version of what happened, since Kerry has chosen to run on this record, it's imperitive that the American people know exactly what happened there. The fact that he hasn't released the records before now is alone cause for suspicion, considering the emphisis he's placed on this.

GSB
August 5, 2004, 09:50 AM
Too bad Dubya hasn't been forthcoming about his iffy service records from the beginning.

For Heaven's sake, they even dredged up his dental records to determine where and when he was on duty. When is enough enough for people?

TarpleyG
August 5, 2004, 10:24 AM
For Heaven's sake, they even dredged up his dental records to determine where and when he was on duty. When is enough enough for people?
Apparently just serving in the Guard or Reserves isn't enough of a sacrifice for some folks.

Greg

ojibweindian
August 5, 2004, 10:39 AM
Too bad Dubya hasn't been forthcoming about his iffy service records from the beginning.

My favorite flavor of Kool-Aid is strawberry :rolleyes:

Rebar
August 5, 2004, 10:56 AM
With Kerry in the lead, the boats approached a small hamlet with three or four grass huts. Pigs and chickens were milling around peacefully. As the boats drew closer, the villagers fled. There were no political symbols or flags in evidence in the tiny village. It was obvious to Bates that existing policies, decency, and good sense required the boats to simply move on.

Instead, Kerry beached his boat directly in the small settlement. Upon his command, the numerous small animals were slaughtered by heavy-caliber machine guns. Acting more like a pirate than a naval officer, Kerry disembarked and ran around with a Zippo lighter, burning up the entire hamlet.
http://www.drudgereport.com/ufd1.htm

What a hero!

I wonder what PETA has to say about this?

Ransom
August 5, 2004, 11:36 AM
John McCain speaks out against the anti Kerry ad.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/08/05/politics1020EDT0544.DTL

Rebar
August 5, 2004, 11:46 AM
John McCain speaks out against the anti Kerry ad.

Funny how when the liberal elite attack Bush, with Fahrenheit 9/11, anti-Bush rock concerts, and the Bush-hate parties, that's all great fun and freedom of speech.

When someone they don't like does the same things, well, that's bad and unfair!

The genie has left the bottle. Turn around is fair play. The Swift Boat vets have the same rights as Moore, Springsteen, and Whoopie to say what they want, more so because they fought for that right. I understand where McCain is coming from, but it's the Bush-Haters club that started this whole mess, and the damage is done.

ojibweindian
August 5, 2004, 12:14 PM
McCain

What a tool.

Rebeldon
August 5, 2004, 12:29 PM
Kerry's record in Congress is bad enough not to elect him. This other stuff distracts people from how bad is record is in Congress.

Does anybody remember "Dear Comandante" Ortega?

Washington Times
Kerry on Reagan
Published June 15, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During last week's mourning for Ronald Reagan, Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, set aside politics for a moment to share fond memories of the former president. Even John Kerry admirably postponed campaigning for the week out of respect. In all, it was probably the longest span of bipartisanship in Washington since the days following September 11. Mr. Reagan deserved nothing less.
It's too bad that some of those same politicians were singing a different tune while Mr. Reagan was alive and doing those things like, as Sen. Ted Kennedy acknowledged last week, winning the Cold War. Had Mr. Kerry had his way during Mr. Reagan's first term, history would surely have turned out differently, and no doubt for the worse.
In 1983, in response to Mr. Reagan's military buildup, a policy that led conclusively toward unhinging the Soviet Union, then Lt. Gov. Kerry had this to say: "What we as citizens can tell our government is that President Reagan should reorder his priorities. We don't need expensive and exotic weapons systems." In February 1984, Mr. Kerry expressed his concern that Mr. Reagan "has mortgaged our future in order to pay for a bloated military budget." Again, in May 1984, Mr. Kerry said, "The defense expenditures of the Reagan administration are without any relevancy to the threat this nation is currently facing." It was that very threat which Mr. Reagan's military buildup helped to eradicate six years later.
In 1986, Libyan terrorists bombed a Berlin disco that killed one American GI and wounded 51. Mr. Reagan ordered an immediate retaliatory air strike. This response apparently angered Mr. Kerry, who said, "It is obvious that our response was not proportional to the disco bombing ... There are numerous other actions we can take, in concert with our allies, to bring significant pressure to bear on countries supporting or harboring terrorists." Sound familiar?
When Mr. Reagan sent Marines into Grenada in 1986, Mr. Kerry described it as "a bully's show of force." When Mr. Reagan was sending aid to anti-Communist forces in Nicaragua, Mr. Kerry called it "haughtiness." He also was one of the signatories in a "Dear Comandante" letter to Nicaraguan leader Daniel Ortega, asking the murderer to play nice with the United States in defiance of Reagan administration policy.
Last week, Mr. Kerry issued a statement on Mr. Reagan's death. In it he said, "Today in the face of new challenges, [Mr. Reagan's] example reminds us that we must move forward with optimism and resolve. He was our oldest president, but he made America young again." That's a kind sentiment to be sure, but a far cry from the "moral darkness" that Mr. Kerry said he hoped was coming to an end back in 1988.
Mr. Kerry also waxed sentimental on one of Mr. Reagan's more enduring lessons for Washington: "Despite the disagreements, [Mr. Reagan] lived by that noble ideal that at 5 p.m. we weren't Democrats or Republicans, we were Americans and friends." We wonder, then, why, in 1992, after Mr. Reagan had left office and was fading from the public debate, Mr. Kerry felt the need to say: "Ronald Reagan certainly never served in combat. I mean, many of his movies depicted him there. And he may have believed he was, but he never was. And the fact is that he sent Americans off to die." To give Mr. Kerry the benefit of the doubt, he might have said this before 5 p.m.

DonP
August 5, 2004, 12:39 PM
I'm going to do my own about how many of the virulently anti-bush people here (most joined us in 1st qtr of '04 coincidentally) that are big time Kerry supporters and only seem to inhabit the Roundtable and L&P sections are still around on November 3rd?

I cant think of at least four names (that will remain unspoken) that will likely dissappear by the second week of November.

How can you call yourself a gun rights advocate and support Kerry with a straight face?

The only answer I come up with is the plans by Moveon.org, earlier in the year, to have people go to traditionally "conservative oriented" sites and "sow seeds of doubt" about Bush. They aren't really gun people and they know just enough about guns to get away with it on this board as long as they stick to the non-technical areas.

Kerry's only major Senate vote this year was to extend the AWB for our buddy Feinstein. I am hard pressed to see how he is a friend of shooters in any way shape or form. I'm still waiting to hear about why we, as gun owners, should vote for Kerry ... that doesn't involve a long diatribe about how horrible Bush is, how he lied etc. I won't hold my breath though.

BTW, I'm a Vietnam vet too (1st Cav - Airmobile!) if that counts for anything and don't know why that service is suposed to magically qualify Kerry. Clinton had his head up his ass in England to dodge the draft and he is an icon to Kerry supporters.

Besides, Kerry was a Navy Puke. (apologies to my squid buddies out there)

ojibweindian
August 5, 2004, 01:31 PM
Besides, Kerry was a Navy Puke. (apologies to my squid buddies out there)

Appology accepted :D

Ransom
August 5, 2004, 01:36 PM
How can you call yourself a gun rights advocate and support Kerry with a straight face?

While Bush is the better gun rights president Kerry isnt nearly as bad as people badmouth him to be. Most things are taken out of context. Plus, they both support dumb gun legislation. The only difference is Bush has already proven himself to not value the constitution. The 2nd amendment is important but so is the entire constituiton.

I'd rather have a president I worry might be unconstitutional than one who has already proven himself to be unconstitutional.

ojibweindian
August 5, 2004, 01:42 PM
You can tell a lot about a man by the company he keeps. Kerry's a bit too chummy with Teddy Boy, as far as I'm concerned.

Ransom
August 5, 2004, 01:43 PM
Another aritcle about the swift vets from another site.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-kerryviet5jul05,1,453423.story?coll=la-headlines-nation


Kerry's charge won him a Silver Star, personally awarded by Zumwalt in a Saigon ceremony. Three days after the skirmish, Kerry and his crew also received a cable from Sealords task force headquarters.

"The tactic of attack and assault thoroughly surprised the enemy in his spider-holes and proved to be immensely effective in rousting him into the open," the message read.

The cable was from Hoffmann. Four times in February and March, he cabled Kerry and his crew, praising them and other Swift boats after skirmishes. Hoffmann acknowledged the cables, saying Kerry showed "some pretty sharp thinking. He had courage. But he was loose. He went out on his own too much."

Hoffmann and several former Swift officers said Kerry's boat sometimes veered off during missions without explanation — a criticism Kerry and his crewmen dismissed.

There are no official rebukes in Navy archives or Kerry's available personnel file. Hoffmann's criticism is also at odds with the glowing evaluations of Kerry in his official Navy record. Only Hibbard's was less than effusive.

"These were all exceptionally good men, and John Kerry was one of them," said former Lt. Cmdr. George Elliot, who gave him top marks.

Elliot nominated Kerry for his Silver Star, but also chided him for beaching his boat, telling Kerry he was uncertain whether he deserved an award or a court-martial. "There was never any question that he was in trouble," Elliot says now. "I just wanted it to be clear that he wasn't supposed to leave the boat."

The same day as the Silver Star beaching, Hoffmann sent Kerry's boat another cable commending the crew's capture of "5 VC males" in a "daring PCF operation [that] will provide an invaluable source of intelligence."

A photograph taken hours after that mission showed a pensive Kerry standing by in a Coast Guard cutter infirmary as a medic treated the gashed leg of a grimacing Vietcong prisoner. Shown the snapshot for the first time on a recent campaign stop in Portland, Ore., Kerry grew somber as he recalled the scene.


Elliot and Hoffman, two people who are fairly critical of John Kerry now seemed to be fairly proud of him at the time, aside from the boat course and beaching thing. But over all both seem to praise him fairly well.

While opinions can change and so forth is kind of goes against the whole "He was a scumbag all the way through the war" vibe they dish out.

Shooter 2.5
August 5, 2004, 01:44 PM
http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com/images/swiftboatUpdated2.JPG

Shooter 2.5
August 5, 2004, 01:47 PM
kerry has an F rating from the GOA and the NRA. He has an A rating from Handgun Control INC. If Bush is supposeedly anti-gun, why is the AWB sunsetting or isn't that important to some people?

Ransom
August 5, 2004, 01:51 PM
What ads did John Kerry use that photo in? I'd be interested in seeing them.

Mr. James
August 5, 2004, 02:04 PM
hoo boy, this is rich:

Kerry isnt nearly as bad as people badmouth him to be.

Name.

One.

Thing.

Name one vote, one piece of legislation, one proposal where Kerry has done anything to advance gun rights or to stem the tide of anti-gun legislation. Oh, you can't? Thought not.

The photograph of Schumer, Kennedy, Feinstein and Kerry grinning gleefully after garroting Sen. Craig's lawsuit pre-emption bill in the crib spoke volumes. Ojibwe is right - we know him by the company he keeps. :barf:

Ransom
August 5, 2004, 02:09 PM
Did I ever say he fought to advance gun owners rights?

Ransom
August 5, 2004, 02:10 PM
And in the essence of fairness:


Swiftboat Vets are claiming Kerry killed a kid.


http://www.drudgereport.com/ufd1.htm


This is getting incredibly dirty.

Rebar
August 5, 2004, 03:17 PM
Swiftboat Vets are claiming Kerry killed a kid.
Actually, Kerry has already confessed to killing unarmed civilians and committing war crimes. How is agreeing with him a dirty trick?

Shooter 2.5
August 5, 2004, 03:21 PM
It looks like it didn't take the ambulance chasers long.

In Rush's closing segment he said that he just received a story or document saying that lawyers for both the Kerry and Edwards teams were sending out letters to TV stations warning them about showing the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth advertisement!

A two hour movie plays with lies about Bush but kerry the "hero" can't stand a three minute commercial. So much for the First Amendment. What would we expect from someone who hates the Second Amendment?

Mr. James
August 5, 2004, 03:28 PM
Ransom, my good fellow,

What you said was:

While Bush is the better gun rights president Kerry isnt nearly as bad as people badmouth him to be

Okay, instead of "Name one thing Kerry did," perhaps you can "Name one thing to demonstrate Kerry isn't nearly as bad [on gun rights] as people badmouth him to be."

It's okay, I'm patient, I'll wait...

Ransom
August 5, 2004, 03:32 PM
Because people assume things about Kerry by using his record to try and predict the future or guess what his whole opinion is. But thats an argument thats already been beaten to death. If you believe Kerry is a gun grabber then nothing is going to change the opinion. More power to ya.

OF
August 5, 2004, 03:40 PM
Because people assume things about Kerry by using his record to try and predict the future...Wow. First the Daily Show is 'news' and now we can't reasonably predict future voting patterns based on a senators 25-year voting history?

Open your eyes, man.

- Gabe

Ransom
August 5, 2004, 03:42 PM
:rolleyes:

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Thumper
August 5, 2004, 03:46 PM
Did I ever say he fought to advance gun owners rights?

I'm saying that he absolutely works AGAINST our rights. Can you refute that in ANY way? Of course you can't. Kerry himself has been plain on the issue.

Look around you, Ransom. You're trying to advance Kerry's cause on a gun board.

Do what you like, but it would be more productive to urinate into a fan.

Have fun, whatever you decide.

another okie
August 5, 2004, 03:48 PM
I've been reading the biography of Kerry by reporters from the Boston Globe, and a little while back I read the two part article on Kerry's tour of duty in Vietnam in Atlantic magazine. Both are quite interesting.

It seems to me that the swift boat ad is mixing up two things. A few guys are saying he wasn't a great officer, and others are saying he "betrayed" them, by which they apparently mean his testimony about atrocities before Congress. Well, you can't argue with people's feelings. If the vets feel betrayed, that's how they feel. As for his service, well, he volunteered and was in combat, and the rest doesn't seem all that relevant to this campaign.

Kerry has some characteristics that might make him a good president and some that might make him a really lousy one. His willingness to go to rhetorical extremes and his risk-taking nature worry me a little. He also is bored by routine and has never really run anything or been head of anything. If W was just a better campaigner he would crush Kerry.

Ransom
August 5, 2004, 03:51 PM
I'm saying that he absolutely works AGAINST our rights. Can you refute that in ANY way? Of course you can't. Kerry himself has been plain on the issue.

Like I say we'll have to agree to disagree. Besides, this thread should stay on topic and not get derailed all to hell and back.

Thumper
August 5, 2004, 03:59 PM
Okay...on the thread topic then:

Your quote in the tread starter:

Apparently even being a vet is open for political games.

I AM a vet...you're telling me this hackneyed excuse for a salute wasn't a political game?

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=1163367

"Reporting for duty" my rear...What a loser.

Rebar
August 5, 2004, 04:04 PM
Wow, my senior drill sergeant would have ripped my arm off and shoved it up my butt, if I rendered a salute like that.

Thumper
August 5, 2004, 04:06 PM
Wow, my senior drill sergeant would have ripped my arm off and shoved it up my butt, if I rendered a salute like that.

Mine too, and I would've considered it a personal insult (and still do) to see anyone else screwing it up.

Bugs the hell outta me. It ain't that hard.

Ransom
August 5, 2004, 04:12 PM
At least he doesnt look like he's keeping the sun out of his eyes.

:p

I think everyone in this election deserves to be thoroughly laughed at.

Thumper
August 5, 2004, 04:12 PM
Check out this walking stack of garbage.

Thumper
August 5, 2004, 04:18 PM
A little hint, Ransom, to contribute to your General Fund of Military Knowledge.

The Commander in Chief has discretion as to whether or not to salute.

Civilians DO NOT.

Guess which of these two is CINC?

DigMe
August 5, 2004, 08:53 PM
No one ever claimed that the men on Kerry's boat don't support him. The truth is that of the 23 OICs that are still alive that served along with Kerry, only one of them supports him as a good candidate for president. It's true that many of the swift boat vets that are against Kerry were not on his boat. However many of them WERE in his unit and fought along side of him often. The commercial that was sent to TV stations included a 60 page packet of affidavits and proof of all the claims in the commercial.

brad cook

Hkmp5sd
August 5, 2004, 09:00 PM
The Commander in Chief has discretion as to whether or not to salute.
Of couse, Clinton didn't salute because he didn't know how. He took lessons from some of his aides and tried it a couple of times, but looked so stupid that he gave it up.

roscoe
August 6, 2004, 12:56 AM
The Commander in Chief has discretion as to whether or not to salute.
Civilians DO NOT
Are you suggesting civilians are under some obligation to salute, or are somehow legally proscribed from doing so? The whole focus here on the salute seems to me to be beyond meaningless. Who cares? The issue is whether the advertisement represents the truth, or took a bunch of quotes out of context to create a damning impression.

I'll wait to see what shakes out of this one before putting my money down, but that ad was certainly unconvincing.

Rebar
August 6, 2004, 02:10 AM
The issue is whether the advertisement represents the truth, or took a bunch of quotes out of context to create a damning impression.
The ad was made by the swift vets for the swift vets, I doubt very much that they'd take their own quotes out of context.

StudentoftheGun
August 6, 2004, 03:35 AM
Snopes has lost credibility as far as I am concerned.

This particular link:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/tides.asp

...shows that Snopes essentially took the party in question's word for it. I do not consider that the kind of exhaustive research we should expect from snopes.com

Certainly, Mr Ransom is correct when he says that the Swiftboat Vet ads are distasteful. It is not nearly as distasteful as the constant barrage of vitriol we hear from Hollywood or the mainstream media.

Some of the comments you have made Mr. Ransom make me wonder. No, you haven't succeeded in making me question who I will vote for. Instead I wonder how someone can claim to be pro-gun and then vehemently support Kerry. I'm afraid Kerry is a far greater threat to your right to keep and bear arms than Bush will ever be. If his voting record is not enough to convince you of that then I doubt that anything I could say or any facts I could present to you would change your mind. I dont have to "make Kerry out to be anti-gun". He has done that well enough himself. Deny it if you wish, but to assert that Kerry is not extremely anti-gun would be abandon fact and embrace "feelings".

On the bright side Kerry has gotten some endorsements that will no doubt cause him some trouble.

http://www.cpusa.org/

As someone said before, turnabout is fair play. After Fahrenhate 9/11 the gloves are off, and rightly so. Let the Swift Vets have their fun.

-Student

Preacherman
August 6, 2004, 05:16 AM
I posted the reply below in this thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=95309) in the Roundtable forum, but I think it's worth repeating here:
Folks, instead of fighting over this from a partisan political perspective, how about we step back, take a deep breath and examine it as dispassionately as possible? (Mandatory disclaimer - I am neither Democrat nor Republican, and will vote for any member of either party whom I judge to be a good, sound human being who shares my values to a reasonable extent. I vote for the person, not the party.)

Point #1: Both Kerry and Bush served in the US armed forces. Both received honorable discharges. This is a matter of open record.

Point #2: Kerry has made a monumental campaign issue out of his Vietnam service, "leadership skills", medals, etc. Unfortunately, he has NOT made such a campaign issue about his post-Vietnam testimony about the US armed forces, his book (which he adamantly refuses to allow to be re-published), the medals he threw over the White House fence, etc. He has chosen to emphasize, in public, only half the story. This leaves him wide, wide open to those who would like to air the other half. This is no-one's fault but his.

Point #3: Those who are airing the "other half of the story" are exercising their democratic right to campaign, and their constitutional right of free speech - just as Kerry is doing with his "first half of the story" campaign emphasis. Both parties have the inalienable, indisputable right to do as they are doing. It's no good trying to sling mud at either side - one can deplore the lack of "gentlemanliness" in the debate, but not the rights and wrongs of free speech.

Point #4: I think that the rights and wrongs of this particular issue will become clearer when examined in the light of history. After their Vietnam service, which of the individuals involved in the debate continued to serve their country with pride? Which of them contributed to building up America? Which of them best exemplifies those things that we call "American"? This is for each of us as individuals to answer - there is no "right" or "wrong" here. For myself, looking at Kerry's voting record, I can't for the life of me imagine him as "Mr. America" - but I would have to say the same about many of his opponents.

The above are, I submit, points we can all agree on in basic terms. From there, we move into the realm of personal and partisan politics. Good luck (and good judgement!) in making your choice!

Ransom
August 6, 2004, 05:20 AM
Bush is by far the better pro gun canidate, however when it comes to the whole constitution I'd rather vote for someone I worry might be unconstitutional than someone who already has done things that are unconstitutional.

Ransom
August 6, 2004, 05:22 AM
A little hint, Ransom, to contribute to your General Fund of Military Knowledge.

The Commander in Chief has discretion as to whether or not to salute.

I wasnt commenting on his choice to salute, just the crappy quality of the salute. Hence the keeping the sun out of his eyes comment.

DevilDog
August 6, 2004, 11:48 AM
As far as who has supported unconstitutional legislation, one only needs to look at Kerry's record as a senator. No wonder he is running more off his military career than his record as a senator.

I guess turnabout is fair play, but I hate to see the right sink to the low tactics of the left though. I would prefer, as a group, that they would keep it at least a notch or two higher.

Kerry does need to release his records. Anyone who is running on a "I am a war hero" platform should do this, even if there were no question on those records.

Kudos to Kerry for not jumping on the bandwagon as far as the recent terror alerts and claiming that it was Bush trying to gain from them.

Kudos to Bush for staying above the fray with respect to the veterans bashing Kerry in thier ad.

Good post Preacherman.

DigMe
August 6, 2004, 11:57 AM
I think Bush has indeed taken the High Road so far from what I've seen. The other day someone asked him about Teresa Heinz-Kerry saying some of the stuff that she said to reporters and his reply was something along the lines of "It's very hard to be the wife of a presidential candidate and to constantly hear and put up with all those negative things." Basically defending a woman who referred to his presidency as four years of hell.

brad cook

Cosmoline
August 6, 2004, 04:41 PM
The charges I find most damning are those from the crews of the other swift boats who were there when Kerry supposedly saved the day Rambo-style. The consensus among them seems to be that Kerry actually just shot some infirm fleeing VC in the back. I also found it VERY interesting that Kerry did not address these very specific, very clear allegations. Instead he's dismissing the whole thing as right wing lies and citing the "glowing reports" (his words) from his superiors. What he has not come out and said is that the vets WHO WERE THERE are lying when they say he just shot some VC in the back. The issue here is whether Kerry, in his well-known effort to become famous and powerful, made himself out into a hero at the cost of those who actually did the fighting that day. This cannot be cast aside easily.

JOE MACK
August 7, 2004, 06:00 AM
:scrutiny: Hmmmm. So far, we know he was IN COUNTRY for four months and change. How long was he actually in a combat zone? I believe I read that Kerry put himself in for the bronze and silver star as the squadron CO was in the hospital with a REAL wound? Some of us had more time in the bush than Kerry had in his whole tour of duty and suffered REAL wounds. Can you say splenectomy? 'Mon Kerry, let's compare scars! I'd like him more if he'd just actually run on the issues. Also, L. Bush makes Hienz-Kerry look rather "DOUDY" given her billions. BTW, I've switched to Hunt's Tomato Ketchup for the duration.:p

Rebeldon
August 7, 2004, 09:39 AM
While Bush is the better gun rights president Kerry isnt nearly as bad as people badmouth him to be.

Give me a freakin' break. This statement deserves to be laughed to scorn. Everybody knows that if Kerry was currently the President, he would make it a top priority to push for an extension of the AWB, and you know it. Tell us the truth.

Bush believes in appointing judges who believe in strict construction of the law. Kerry will appoint judges who will use the bench to CREATE laws out of thin air, and DECONSTRUCT the meaning of words in the Constitution to mean whatever they want it too. And it's surprising that is always in support of some left-wing agenda. :rolleyes:

If you love the Constitution, you will run like hell from somebody who refers to the U.S. Constitution as a "living, breathing document". And that is the Democratic mantra! They hate the Constitution! It impedes them from doing what they want to this country. They have to put judges on the bench who will ignor the meaning of words in the constitution so they can subvert the laws they don't like. They are evil tyrants!!!

If you enjoyed reading about "Swift Boat Vets for Truth? Or Political Gain?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!