Swift Boat Vets for Truth? Or Political Gain?

[another okie]

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]

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]

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?

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

 

[Rebar]

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]

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]

At least he doesnt look like he's keeping the sun out of his eyes.



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

 

[Thumper]

Check out this walking stack of garbage.

 

[Thumper]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

FWIW

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]

I posted the reply below in this thread 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Rebeldon]

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.

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!!!