Swift Boat Vets

[Lord DragonsWing]

For over a month I've sat back and watched the others post anti-Bush ads and speak for Kerry. When ever I responded, I was attacked. I thought this was for the authors to hang out. Not with the upcoming the election it seems. Still, after saying I'm tired of seeing the political ads they continue to be posted.
So let me post the truth about Kerry. This includes his 4 month and 12 days in Nam, when a normal tour was 1 year. This includes accounts of his congressional record of flip-flopping on issues. His testimony to Congress against the men who he served with in Nam for his short period. His words calling Veterans drunks, killers, drug addicts and murders. Words from the medic who treated him saying he didn't earn one of his purple hearts, but everyone wanted him out of the area and let him get away with it. His FITREP reports from the Navy showing him lower than desireable. I'm sorry, I was wrong earlier. I gave the man the benefit of not having a political desire, now I find out he did.
This is the man running for President and yet his soldiers and superiors did not want him to lead. Now, he wants to lead the country and our soldiers. And those here will screen the articles to post what they want you to see.
Welcome to American politics. Welcome to the world of Kerry and his cronies. In response to each article the cronies post. I shall post something even more damaging. The truth against Kerry.

In the meantime, visit the Veterans who served with Kerry and learn what they have to say. Yes, one has retracted his statement. One of his commanding officers. But his FITREP report still stands. He still stands by that. And from Admirals on down, Kerry was a problem and not deserving.

Here's the link for the veterans. Make your own decision. That's all you can do as a voter.

http://www.swiftvets.com/

 

[doormouse]

And with that, I'm glad there aren't any Australian political debates.

Adieu

 

[rgraham666]

Before you tee off on me LDW, I'm Canadian.

And at least, Kerry put himself in harm's way. Which is more than you can say for Shrub II.

Also, as I understand it, the tour of duty for officers in Nam was six months. Enlisted men served a year. This, in my opinion, is one of the reasons that 1,300 officers and NCOs were fragged during that war.

Also, it wasn't uncommon for wounded soldiers to be pulled from the front line. Kerry collected, what was it, three Purple Hearts?

And considering the heavy leavening of remfs in the U.S. Armed Forces at the time, a FITREP of poor doesn't surprise me in the least. Remfs don't much like soldiers and vice versa.

Note: Remf is an acronym. Rear Echelon Mother Fuckers.

 

[ferociouskittycat]

This is a dead thread... shoo.... go away

Nothing to see here people.



I give up.. go for it.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

When McCain was running against Bush, they pulled the same kinf of thng, trying to paint him as a traitor for the time he spent as a POW!

When that didn't work, they had a phone campaign in South Carolina reminding people that McCain had a 'black baby'. McCain had adopted a child from Bangladesh, but they didn't tell the voters that. Just that he had a black baby. Karl Rove at his finest.

Kerry put his ass on the line while Bush was AWOL from the National Guard and all people can talk about was Kerry's war record? Halliburton is up to its eyebrows in corruption and Bush is the first president we've ever had with a criminal record and is a known liar and we're going to talk about character?

Please. Who's talking about issues and who's smearing their opponent? And why aren't they talking about issues? Could it be because Bush has pretty much fucked up everything he's touched?

---dr.M.

Th

 

[Guest]

For over a month I've sat back and watched the others post anti-Bush ads and speak for Kerry. When ever I responded, I was attacked.

Not you, just your misinformation. You attacked ME on MY thread, if you recall, for my opinion.

Words from the medic who treated him saying he didn't earn one of his purple hearts, but everyone wanted him out of the area and let him get away with it.

The words from the medic who treated him? That medic's signature is not on any of Kerry's medical records.

His FITREP reports from the Navy showing him lower than desireable.

As opposed to Dubyah failing at every job he's attempted? He's the consumate frat boy - I see him slapping towels in the locker room to this day.

And those here will screen the articles to post what they want you to see.

As do you. You won't present an unbiased view. Your link is strictly from the group against him.

Welcome to American politics. Welcome to the world of Kerry and his cronies. In response to each article the cronies post. I shall post something even more damaging. The truth against Kerry.

Now, remember, we talked about this. Facts vs. truth. You need facts, not someone's warped opinions of the truth.

And from Admirals on down, Kerry was a problem and not deserving.

And Dubyah - IS?

Here's the link for the veterans. Make your own decision. That's all you can do as a voter.

Yes. And thank God for that.

 

[cantdog]

LDW

Forget it. No one is going to change her mind, not here, not anywhere. You lie if you claim or imply you're openminded on this. You believe what you want just like everyone else.

Go ahead and rant if you like. They did. Did any of the facts sway you in the least? Will any of your references sway them?

W is a cypher. It's the Asscrofts and the Wolfowitzes, the Rumsfelds in this gang which matter. So vote for your W, have your gestapo. But don't imagine ACLU members are going to vote for the secret police state alongside you, no matter how many aspersions you cast on anyone.


cantdog

 

[Guest]

When McCain was running against Bush, they pulled the same kinf of thng, trying to paint him as a traitor for the time he spent as a POW!

When that didn't work, they had a phone campaign in South Carolina reminding people that McCain had a 'black baby'. McCain had adopted a child from Bangladesh, but they didn't tell the voters that. Just that he had a black baby. Karl Rove at his finest.

Kerry put his ass on the line while Bush was AWOL from the National Guard and all people can talk about was Kerry's war record? Halliburton is up to its eyebrows in corruption and Bush is the first president we've ever had with a criminal record and is a known liar and we're going to talk about character?

Please. Who's talking about issues and who's smearing their opponent? And why aren't they talking about issues? Could it be because Bush has pretty much fucked up everything he's touched?

---dr.M.

Th

Isn't this amazing?

What happened to "Travel Gate" and "Monica Gate" and the other assorted bullshit that they attacked Clinton for not so very long ago?

Now we have the Vice-President with a company that has admitted lying about the work they did, paying millions in fines for their misdeeds, who received billions in no-bid contracts from our government to rebuild Iraq, and NO ONE is investigating that?

I remember the attacks on McCain. Pathetic. But they couldn't do anything else, could they? Same as now.

All Bush can do is instill fear ("Elect me, because I'm the only one who can protect you against the evil terrorists!!!) and smear his opponent.

I would love to see a real debate. The two of them, discussing issues? But that will never happen. Dubyah can't even read a speech someone wrote for him without falling on his ass. There's no way his advisors will put him in front of a mic with Kerry (or anyone else who made better than C's in college).

 

[Guest]

LDW

Forget it. No one is going to change her mind, not here, not anywhere. You lie if you claim or imply you're openminded on this. You believe what you want just like everyone else.

Go ahead and rant if you like. They did. Did any of the facts sway you in the least? Will any of your references sway them?

W is a cypher. It's the Asscrofts and the Wolfowitzes, the Rumsfelds in this gang which matter. So vote for your W, have your gestapo. But don't imagine ACLU members are going to vote for the secret police state alongside you, no matter how many aspersions you cast on anyone.


cantdog

Ah, the calm and gentle voice of reason.

Thanks, cant!

 

[CuriTab]

I've been surfing about for information on the Swift Boat Vets for Truth and have found these links:

Disinfopedia: History of the SBVfT

From WinterSolder.com: Swift Boat Veterans and the Media Iron Curtain

Useful Fools: Dangerous Veterans (to Kerry)

History of the Swift Vets

Personally, I like neither Bush nor Kerry. My cynicism does not allow me to see the difference between the two (much like corporate campaign contributers). I see Bush as a sock-puppet for the Right, but I don't see much reason to have confidence in Kerry.

I ask: why won't Kerry directly respond to the accusations of the SBV? Why is he using the legal system to threaten those who would air the ads? Is it that criticism of Bush is allowed (Michael Moore and his ilk), and protected under the First Amendment, yet all criticism of Kerry is disqualified because he actually served in Vietnam?

Since he has made his "service" a centerpiece of his campaigning, he should be prepared to countenance those who question him. Thus far, he has not. This isn't the first time the SBV have attacked him on this issue.

Will Bush himself question him directly on it? No, because if he even smirks in that direction, his "lack of service" will be thrown into his face. It's a lose-lose. If he endorses the Swift Boat ads, he's painted as the group's sponsor; if he requests that the ads be yanked, then he's painted as a censor and a criminal agains the First Amendment.

Will the big media players like CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, etc go after this like they should? No. They want to preserve their ratings, and make sure that they keep their access to candidates. Piss 'em off, you lose an "exclusive".

I always attempt to be fair, and to see these things from both sides. I will be reading O'Neill's book. I will be following this and wondering whatever happened to "the issues".

Since the main accusation flying at the SBV is that they are "Republican Operatives" for questioning whether or not John Kerry told the truth about his service, am I the same for wondering the same thing?

Funny, considering my VRC has NPA on it.

 

[doormouse]

The only 'bush' I care about is my own shaved one.

The only 'kerry' I know is my best friend's child.

la la la la la

anyone for coffee?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

From CuriTab's Disinforpedia link:

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth
------------------
Founding members of the group include Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann (retired), a famously aggressive commander of Swift boat forces; John E. O'Neill, a veteran and attorney who had long been a vociferous critic of Kerry's war record and who has been associated with the Nixon administration to counter Vietnam War protests against the war (see below)[10]; 13 other named veterans; and other veterans who were not members but signed the group's public statement against Kerry, for a total of 189 signatures. The statement claimed that Kerry had not been forthcoming about his military and medical records, and demanded that he make them public, which he did. The group has continued to criticize Kerry on other aspects of his record.

SBVT contains many officers who praised Kerry's conduct during the Vietnam War. These include Division Commander Grant Hibbard, who wrote positive evaluations of Kerry, and Commander George Elliott, who submitted Kerry for a Silver Star. By contrast, none of the men who directly served under Kerry in his Swift boat belong to SBVT and they actively campaign on behalf of Kerry's presidential bid.

SBVT is officially nonpartisan, but has several ties to Republican Party politics. Notably, its media representative, Merrie Spaeth, was a Reagan administration press officer and an advisor to Ken Starr in the Clinton impeachment. The SBVT website states: ...
-------------------------

[my bolds]

---dr.M.

 

[shereads]

I always attempt to be fair, and to see these things from both sides. I will be reading O'Neill's book. I will be following this and wondering whatever happened to "the issues".

Thank God there are still people who read books by unbiased sources, and draw their own conclusions. Can O'Neill be accused of bias because he was fired? Of course. But when an author offers documentation for his claims, his motive is irrelevent. The same applies to Clarke and Wilson's books. These are people who barely knew each other, two of them lifelong Republicans appointed by Bush Sr. All of them tell a story of the Bush/Cheney White House that is absolutely chilling.

I've challenged Dragon half a dozen times to read any of these books, and each time, he disappears from the thread where he was challenged and pops up again somewhere else, freshly indignant that Bush is being "attacked by people who don't know the truth."

There's only one truth that ought to matter in November: the truth of what's been happening in the White House for four years.

There's a moment in "The Price of Loyalty" that says everything I need to know about the current administration. It has nothing to do with the war or 9/11 or Vietnam. It's from a cabinet meeting, for which Paul O'Neill has the transcript:

The president questions the 2nd tax cut:

"Shouldn't we do something for the middle class?"

His Secretary of Defense urges him to proceed with the tax cut, saying it's important to "stay the course."

Then Mr. Cheney adds this line, the one that sums up what these people are all about:

"Mr. President, we won the mid-terms. This is our due."

Not, 'This is what's best for the economy,' or 'This will create jobs,' or 'It may look bad but it's really the right thing to do.'

"This is our due."

One of the richest people ever to hold power in this country was guided in a policy discussion by the belief that he was owed something by the American people. The president went along with it, as he has time and again in accounts by people who were there. It chills me to the bone, as it will you when you read it.

It won't bother Dragon, because he won't read what he doesn't want to know.

On the Vietnam subject, I disagree with you that Kerry is the one who made his military record an essential topic. Yes, his campaign has latched onto it as their main marketing theme, and I'm tired of it tool. But the ones who opened the door were the Republicans and Bush himself.

For 8 years, whenever there was a military issue, Republicans reminded us that Bill Clinton was a draft dodger, "morally unfit to lead," as Trent Lott said when we had troops in Bosnia. Clinton dodged the draft legally, using the college deferment loophole. Just like Vice President Cheney. The President's way was somewhat less ethical: let's not forget that there were thousands of men on the waiting list for Guard service, and that somehow his name went to the front of the line; and that the reason there was a waiting list was that Guard service meant you could stay home.

No one would have cared, certainly I wouldn't, if Bush hadn't spent years misrepresenting himself as a military man, and benefited from it. It's not about who's brave and who's not; the war was a waste. It's about hypocrisy.

While Bush daily reminded us to support our troops, he watched his party destroy Max Cleland to gain a Senate seat.

As governor, he once answered a reporter's question about his daughters by saying, "I've been to war and I've raised twins, and war is easier." Like his mentor Karl Rove, he was learning that if you say something often enough, it becomes true.

The aircraft carrier photo op was one thing; that the White House authorized an action figure named, "George W. Bush, Naval Aviator," was beyond the bondaries of good taste and was arguably dishonest.

As for Kerry, for all you or I know, he was either a hero or just another scared and embittered kid. There are Swift Boat Veterans on both sides of the story. The only thing we can know for sure is that he volunteered to be there.

~~~

Dragon, I'll ask you once more to read O'Neill, Clarke or Wilson. I know you won't respond, but this is too important to let go. Nothing you've posted about Kerry, even if it were entirely proven, is as abhorrent as the George W. Bush you'll find in those pages.

I'll also ask you, and anyone else involved in the debate about who did or didn't behave honorably during Vietnam, to consider the two men whose lives were immeasurably affected. They might even be men of that generation who read this forum.

They don't know who they are, but the fact that they exist is not a matter of anyone's opinion. Just do the math.

There is - or was - a man whose place on the National Guard waiting list was behind thousands of other names, but ahead of George W. Bush. Three weeks before Bush's deferrment would have been up, his name somehow jumped to the front of the line. When there was no more room in the Guard, one of the names left for the draft lottery didn't belong there. Bush's name did.

His father's influence didn't just help his son, it may have cost someone else a son.

There's also a man, maybe in this forum, whose draft number didn't come up because John Kerry volunteered.


That's what matters about the past.

What matters about the future is that we not re-elect the people described in "The Price of Loyalty," "Against All Enemies," and "The Politics of Truth." The three books that Dragon has so far refused to acknowledge, much less read. These people cheated to be where they are, just as Bush cheated someone else out of a place in the Guard. No matter what issues concern each of us, the evidence says GWB's first concern is giving himself and his cronies what they think is due them.

 

[cantdog]

I'd add "Imperial Hubris" by Anonymous to that list as well. That author is a right winger, an empire-builder, a superpower supporter. He describes the botch in Afghanistan and the unnecessary and venal mess in Iraq, from the inside, at CIA.

cantdog

 

[cantdog]

{PS}

Welcome, CuriTab!

Nice to meet you. Thoughtful post.

 

[shereads]

The only 'bush' I care about is my own shaved one.

The only 'kerry' I know is my best friend's child.

la la la la la

anyone for coffee?

It might be time to start caring about the world you're making for your best friend's child.

Being passive about politics doesn't make you safe from it.

Your attitude is the prevailing one, and I almost envy it. I hate knowing things that make me grind my teeth in my sleep during the months preceding an election. But I live in a democracy and that gives me two choices: help determine its direction, or trust my future to strangers.

I don't know how it works where you live, but over here we all complain about politicians selling out to the people who fund their campaigns for reelection. But the fact is, campaign donations would be worthless if every voter made it his business to find out what they're not telling us in those 3rd-grade-level TV commercials.

You live in a democracy. YOU ARE IN CHARGE.

And yes, I'd love some coffee.

 

[shereads]

I always attempt to be fair, and to see these things from both sides. I will be reading O'Neill's book. I will be following this and wondering whatever happened to "the issues".

Someone pointed out to me in PM that you weren't referring to O'Niell who served as an economic advisor to two Bush presidencies and wrote "The Price of Loyalty," but the O'Neill who has issues with Kerry's war record.

I guess your statement that the issues are being lost in the reenactment of the Vietnam war led me to believe you were referring to Paul O'Neill's book, which is fully documented and has to do with the performance of the man in office, not his history during the war.

I'm always curious about the relative merits of two candidates' alleged lies and misdeeds, when the repercussions of one seem so enormous and the other, even if proven, would make him more petty than dangerous.

Recently, a Bush supporter whom I happen to respect, PMd me with a link to an article repudiating Michael Moore for the accuracy of something in F911. I didn't see it as more than the replacement of one newspaper's name with another; an editorial mix-up. But I asked him, as I've asked in this forum:

So what?

Let's assume there was a reason for Moore to lie about which newspaper he sourced a story from; let's even pretend that most of what Moore alleges in his film is not supported by other, unrelated sources including the Clarke and Wilson books, and that it's an invention. Let's let Dragon have his way about the "liberal Hollywood Democrats" who financed the movie, and ignore the fact that a Canadian company rescued the film when Disney dropped it.

Let's go all the way, and assume that half of Bush's critics in the U.S. and all the ones around the world aren't seeing something real and dangerous, are but just "Bush bashing" as a form of recreation or hate speech.

How does that make the other half irrelevent? Why are even the facts that are true beyond any reasonable doubt, so unimportant that conservatives continue to ignore them? How is it that Clinton's lie about his personal life was an impeachable offense, and Bush's lies pertaining to public policy are not worth bothering to learn more about before you dismiss them out of hand? Or that Kerry's war record is subject to scrutiny, and Clinton's draft dodging made him unfit to lead, but Bush's youthful indiscretions and Cheney's draft dodging are understandable?

If Kerry is a female impersonator, it can't make him a liar comparable to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. People are dying who would not have died if Bush had not lied to Congress, or hadn't chosen to believe a convicted con man's word over his own advisors. Treason was committed against a CIA agent as revenge against her husband. Bush's unfitness to lead is documented, people. It's there, it exists, you can't make Bush better than he is by refusing to read the facts. People like Ambassador Wilson risked their reputations and their families to tell you the truth. How can you insult them this way?

 

[cantdog]

More fun on the campaign trail

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

I usually avoid political threads, but this one's just too much to ignore.

Words from the medic who treated him saying he didn't earn one of his purple hearts,

This includes his 4 month and 12 days in Nam, when a normal tour was 1 year.

LDW,

No wonder you're down on Kerry, he may have picked up only TWO legitimate Purple Hearts. By that yardstick I must be a godless, drug-oriented, Jane Fonda-hugging, commie since I was there less than three months and only got one. (note: While there were exceptions, it was SOP in most units that anyone picking up a third PH was rotated out of combat.)

Makes a real American wonder how many Bush II earned while defending democracy in Alabama? They come pretty cheap at Base Exchanges or, since there's no evidence he ever made it to an Air National Guard base in 'Bama, he could pick up two or three slightly used ones cheap at some pawn shop.

Next thing we'll be hearing from the Bush smear team is that Kerry dodged the draft (leaving out the fact it was by joining the Navy). Don't laugh. Judging by what the Bushes did to McCain in South Carolina, nothing is beneath them.

Tell you what LDW, next time try saying something positive about Bush's "war" record instead of repeating smears of Kerry's.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[Guest]

Rumple -

 

[tolyk]

So, which one of these two gentlemen is considered the "lesser evil" ? I'm just curious. I'm Canadian for those who can't read the info on the side, and I'm frankly just interested to see what kind of replies this gets.

I don't think I would like having to pick between those two men, we normally have more than 2 choices... not that any of them have much chance besides one other, but at least you can place your ballot for them.

 

[Guest]

More than two choices would be a wonderful thing.

If there were an array of political choices in the U.S. from which to choose perhaps there wouldn't be so much hate-filled smearing of personal and public lives.

I would welcome it.


Edited to add - I wouldn't consider Ralph Nader a valid third choice.

 

[shereads]

I usually avoid political threads, but this one's just too much to ignore.


LDW,

No wonder you're down on Kerry, he may have picked up only TWO legitimate Purple Hearts. By that yardstick I must be a godless, drug-oriented, Jane Fonda-hugging, commie since I was there less than three months and only got one. (note: While there were exceptions, it was SOP in most units that anyone picking up a third PH was rotated out of combat.)

Makes a real American wonder how many Bush II earned while defending democracy in Alabama? They come pretty cheap at Base Exchanges or, since there's no evidence he ever made it to an Air National Guard base in 'Bama, he could pick up two or three slightly used ones cheap at some pawn shop.

Next thing we'll be hearing from the Bush smear team is that Kerry dodged the draft (leaving out the fact it was by joining the Navy). Don't laugh. Judging by what the Bushes did to McCain in South Carolina, nothing is beneath them.

Tell you what LDW, next time try saying something positive about Bush's "war" record instead of repeating smears of Kerry's.

Rumple Foreskin

You only got one purple heart?

Thank God.

I'm grateful you didn't think you had to try for another one to meet a quota. If you run for public office, you may have to volunteer for Iraq and earn one more, or Republicans will compare your record to Bush's and you'll fall short, by some intricate formula that I'm still trying to comprehend.

Maybe Bush's supporters can help clarify this puzzle:

A few months of service in one of the most dangerous jobs of the Vietnam War, resulting in more than one injury, are not enough to prove that Candidate A deserves your respect and is not a liar.

Zero months in combat, no purple hearts or any risk of one, a few months missing from his service record, and a record number of highly critical books written by his own appointees about a president still in office, are not enough to prove that Candidate B is undeserving of your respect and is a liar.

No wonder Max Cleland's three missing limbs left him open to charges of cowardice. A Vietnam veteran has to have been killed or faded into obscurity to merit the respect of real Americans.

 

[shereads]

So, which one of these two gentlemen is considered the "lesser evil" ? I'm just curious. I'm Canadian for those who can't read the info on the side, and I'm frankly just interested to see what kind of replies this gets.

I don't think I would like having to pick between those two men, we normally have more than 2 choices... not that any of them have much chance besides one other, but at least you can place your ballot for them.

That's easy: the man who deserves the presidency this time is the one who hasn't spent the last three years tearing apart the country and draiining its budget and giving wars as Christmas gifts to corporations. I wish I liked Kerry more, but frankly we don't elect a president to be invited over for cocktails and hang out together. At this point, I'm hoping to elect the one who has not yet proven that everything he touches has disastrous consequences.

 

[Edward Teach]

HE WENT !!!!

LDW,

Personally, I don't give a fuck what John Kerry did in Viet Nam or what he did afterward.

I don't give a fuck if he surrendered his goddamned boat to Ho Chi Minh.

He fucking went while GWB hid. John Kerry volunteered and went. He fucking went.

And you can't change those two facts I don't care how hard you try or how much bullshit you want to swallow.

Ed