KungFuSquirrelBasher of MuttonsJoin Date: 2002-01-26Member: 103Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
<!--QuoteBegin-Recoup+Aug 22 2004, 07:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Recoup @ Aug 22 2004, 07:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Liberal news sources like CNN bring it up because they hate to see their star model Kerry getting picked off like a nasty tick. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So how 'bout that nearly equal Fox News coverage on it, eh? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Just as many articles there as on the CNN site covering the subject, if not more, and that's just from a quick browse.
It's not like someone wouldn't have brought up his military service anyway - if you've ever done anything remotely controversial or interesting in your life, it's fodder for a presidential election.
Oh, and the Fox News article of all places actually confirmed that one man in the group of veterans forming the swift boat group has ever met Kerry in his life. One. So yeah, that was mostly accurate recollection on my part.
<!--QuoteBegin-Recoup+Aug 22 2004, 07:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Recoup @ Aug 22 2004, 07:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You know, if Kerry didnt bring up his military service in Vietnam (not even an entire service. 3 to 4 months doesnt compare to a full 1 year tour of duty. Somehow he's a "war hero") then we wouldnt have to worry about it would we?
Liberal news sources like CNN bring it up because they hate to see their star model Kerry getting picked off like a nasty tick. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah. That's it. It's all a liberal media conspiracy and we need to bust out the tinfoil hats.
Kerry's bringing up his military service was a means to accomplish two goals. First, it was a way to bolster his own service record in comparison to Bush. Bush, at best, used family connections to get into a NG champagne unit and bypass the waiting list to get into the National Guard and at worst went AWOL. Second, his military service functioned as a buffer against claims that he's weak on national security. National security has long been a component of the Republican campaign standard and getting a piece of that pie has always been on the Democratic agenda.
Another thing. You criticize Kerry for only spending 4 months in Vietnam, but ignore the reasons why he did so. People who had been injured several times in combat usually got a cushy job. They either got transferred stateside, like Kerry, or they got sent back to rear-line units to work supply lines or administrative duty. Kerry, with three purple hearts under his belt, certainly qualified for the transfer.
Of course, Bush did a great job of keeping Charlie out of American bars.
But then many of the swift boat veterans attest that Kerry flourished so much of his reports that he received like 2-3 of his purples hearts over cuts and scrapes. I don't remember all the details, and I'll look further for them, but one was from shrapnel from his own grenade I believe, and it was only a couple millimeters deep.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sirus+Aug 23 2004, 02:32 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Aug 23 2004, 02:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't remember all the details, and I'll look further for them, but one was from shrapnel from his own grenade I believe, and it was only a couple millimeters deep. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, I believe you've successfully been disinformed-- from what I have gathered, the crew serving with Kerry has sworn up and down that their boat was not equipped with the grenade launcher/grenade which would have produced his injury. Searching for the link now. . . however, it's kind of odd that Max Cleland, who was also injured in Viet Nam (though he left three limbs behind) <b>also</b> had his events re-mixed by the GOP to include a self inflicted grenade wound.
Edit: Ah, found it. From <a href='http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/08/20/kerry_comrades_have_credibility_on_their_side/' target='_blank'>the Boston Globe . . .</a>
Excerpt: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Myself, Pat Runyon, and John Kerry," says Zaladonis, the engineman on Kerry's first swift boat, "we were the only ones in the skimmer."
"There definitely was not a fourth," says Runyon. Though the two assume they took hostile fire, both men acknowledge they aren't completely certain. But they also firmly reject the claim that Kerry somehow wounded himself by using an M-79 grenade launcher.
"I am reasonably sure we didn't have an M-79," Zaladonis said. "I didn't see one. I don't remember it."
Runyon says the only weapons the trio had were an M-60 machine gun, two M-16 combat rifles, and, possibly, a .45 caliber pistol. Is he 100 percent sure there wasn't an M-79 grenade launcher in the boat?
"I wouldn't say 100 percent, but I know 100 percent certain that we didn't shoot them," replies Runyon. He does remember Kerry having trouble with his M-16. "His gun jammed or he ran out of ammunition -- I don't know which -- but he bent down to pick up the other M-16," he says.
Zaladonis, who was manning the machine gun, recalls Kerry telling him to redirect his fire to another area. "If we got return fire, I am not sure," he said. But he adds that there's one thing he does know: "I know that John got hurt." And not by shrapnel from a grenade launcher. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's kind of like the inverse of the misinformation about George W. Bush's DUI. Why'd he get pulled over? Uh . . . . . er . . . . driving too slow! He was driving in such a <i>safe manner that he arroused the cops' suspicion</i> (when in reality, he drove off the road into a hedge-- so they were being <i>slightly</i> charitible on their interpretation of events).
How can we spin their injury so it's a) hard to trace, b) modestly plausible, and c) makes them look either <i>totally</i> incompetent or <i>completely</i> retarded? <b>Self inflicted grenade wound!</b>.
Even so, Bob Dole, War Hero, says thus: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"As we approached the enemy, there was a brief exchange of gunfire. I took a grenade in hand, pulled the pin, and tossed it in the direction of the farmhouse. It wasn't a very good pitch (remember, I was used to catching passes, not throwing them). In the darkness, the grenade must have struck a tree and bounced off. It exploded nearby, sending a sliver of metal into my leg--the sort of injury the Army patched up with Mercurochrome and a Purple Heart."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And there were fringe groups against Bush 41 telling us that he bailed early from his aircraft, dooming several of his less fortunate crewmates to their deaths. Didn't McCain receive special treatment for the Viet Cong for betraying his country and the remaining POWs?
I say these not in a ****-for-tat, but to demonstrate the ridiculous charges that always follow our servicemen who dare to use their service as a campaign talking point. Republican or Democrat, I believe that they served, and they certainly deserve to talk about their service (one of the things which I <i>really</i> dislike about Kerry was that he made comments critical of Bob Dole for using his war experience on the campaign trail . . . . which now makes things a little <i>awkward</i>.)
There's a <i>very</i> fine line between a flesh wound and a body bag, and most of these men are more poignantly aware of that than the majority of us ever will be.
Besides, if we're going to go with technicalities, and John Kerry's speaking of his wounds opens the flood gate of potential criticism, then let's be entirely honest and say that the ties from SBVFT to the Bush administration are really compelling (remember the loose criteria that we were told ties Al Queda to Saddam? Using that as a benchmark, we <b>must</b> conclude that these guys are <i>seriously</i> connected), then we get to look at him too, no?
Sayeth he: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you see what would have become of the alternate reality GW Bush who wasn't connected enough to vault over others in the TANG. <i>Not</i> impressed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bush, at best, used family connections to get into a NG champagne unit and bypass the waiting list to get into the National Guard and at worst went <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This has been discussed, you cannot go AWOL in the national guard unless your unit was federalized. Bushes unit was never federalized. Sencond do you honestly believe that they would send the son of the head of the CIA into battle, that would be great if he got caught.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> say these not in a ****-for-tat, but to demonstrate the ridiculous charges that always follow our servicemen who dare to use their service as a campaign talking point. Republican or Democrat, I believe that they served, and they certainly deserve to talk about their service (one of the things which I really dislike about Kerry was that he made comments critical of Bob Dole for using his war experience on the campaign trail . . . . which now makes things a little awkward.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Previous elections involving war heros have had the same type of attempts to discredit the canidat. It seems to be a common tool anymore.
I for one am not upset about the ads. If your participation in the war is going to be a big part of your platform, than be prepared to have it attacked.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
edited August 2004
I've seen at least one of these ads and I've heard a number of these "veterans against Kerry" on various radio and tv programs. From everything I've gathered, the basis for their argument is being twisted from both sides. It seems to me that these veterans, the majority of which have been active for many years, began their efforts based on Kerry's congressional reports and anti-war activities immediately following his return. While this book <i>Unfit for command</i> does question some of the specifics regarding Kerry's activities in Vietnam, their main focus is on his ability to lead and make sound judgements.
Meanwhile, the Kerry campaign and its supporters have propped this up as some extremist outcasts who are trying to "question John Kerry's patriotism". Rather than accept the judgements of these men, their lives must be examined by political coroners and their credibility must be removed. This amuses me due to the fawning, starry-eyed praise that was given to the veterans who stood on the platform with Kerry during the DNC.
On the other side, the Republican pundits are swinging this book like some holy hammer pretending that it proves Kerry is a lying flip-flopper. But when pressed on the specifics there's plenty of shifting and whimpering. This because, as I noted earlier, it's not the main purpose of these concerned veterans.
I recommend taking all of this at face value and ignoring the political manipulations from the campaigns. These men disagree with putting Kerry in the Presidential seat. Agree with them, or not. Then move on. But this nonsense about sueing the RNC for violating the McCain-Fiengold act is a very bad idea. The Kerry group will find itself up a creek without a paddle. Know this: both sides have and will violate this law. Mostly because the law is rediculous in its written form but also because they're "above the law" politicians.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think the SBV should shut their pie holes, they are grueful exaggerating and it's propaganda for buz' campaign.. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
heaven forbid someone voice their opinion. They are entitled to their first admendment rights, and they should feel free to exercise it.
Well Bob Dole has joined in on the fraye. <a href='http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/29319.htm' target='_blank'>In recent news.</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It seems to me that these veterans, the majority of which have been active for many years, began their efforts based on Kerry's congressional reports and anti-war activities immediately following his return. While this book Unfit for command does question some of the specifics regarding Kerry's activities in Vietnam, their main focus is on his ability to lead and make sound judgements.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, there are cases where some of the men affiliated with this group (and I'll try to find links here) wrote glowing reviews of his abilities while in Viet Nam, but quickly revised their assessments, based on his post war activities. Is their anger clouding (or intentionally misguiding) their judgement?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Rather than accept the judgements of these men, their lives must be examined by political coroners and their credibility must be removed. This amuses me due to the fawning, starry-eyed praise that was given to the veterans who stood on the platform with Kerry during the DNC. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, they should at least be <i>examined</i>. Or do we only reserve that level of scrutiny for John Kerry, and take his detractors at their word? As it's been said, John Kerry brought up Viet Nam, so he deserves to have his record parsed with a fine toothed comb. Fair enough-- but Swift Boat Vets, you launch ads offering your own interpretations of events, you're calling down the same thunder. We can't obsess over one version, and then give the other version a perfunctory skim and proclaim 'Good enough for me!'
I think 'fawning, starry eyed praise' might be a bit much, but they were the closest to Kerry and seemed to agree about the way things happened. Again, I know the Swift Boat vets offer a very different picture, but who calls the balls and strikes in a baseball game-- the home plate umpire, or the first base umpire? Proximity <i>does</i> matter. Additionally, the only people who have attempted to counter their claims are the Swift Boat Vets, and they're having a really hard time just keeping their story straight (Larry Thurlow, when you finally figure out a) exactly <i>why</i> you got your bronze star, and b) why yours was legitimate but Kerry's was not, even though they were awarded for the same incident and similar actions, give me a call).
This is a bit of a tangent, but let's face it, political criticism doesn't happen in a vacuum. So-- we have this book coming out by someone who can be seen as more than a little bitter. There are also rumblings about their partisanship. Obviously, they want to generate some controversy and noise so they can drum up sales.
Interestingly, these are the exact same reasons we were told to dismiss the claims of people like Paul O'Neil and Richard Clarke out of hand.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
I should have prefaced my first post by saying that none of this "Kerry in Vietnam" business will have any effect on my vote, regardless of the "truth". I consider the entire debate (that is outside of this forum) to be a complete excercise in futility.
That being said.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, they should at least be examined. Or do we only reserve that level of scrutiny for John Kerry, and take his detractors at their word? As it's been said, John Kerry brought up Viet Nam, so he deserves to have his record parsed with a fine toothed comb. Fair enough-- but Swift Boat Vets, you launch ads offering your own interpretations of events, you're calling down the same thunder. We can't obsess over one version, and then give the other version a perfunctory skim and proclaim 'Good enough for me!' <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree they should be examined. The difference is that prior to Kerry actually mentioning his dismay about the SBV ads in a recent speech, there hasn't been any solid examination of the events. The story presented at the DNC was accepted without question.
I consider this entire fiasco to be a Democrat political campaign snafu. They wanted to prop up Kerry as a "veteran strong on defense". Fine. Now the opposition is attempting to defunct it. The impression the higher ups in the Kerry campaign seem to present is that they're version should stick and any disagreement should go away. I can't blame them, but they opened themselves up to it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They wanted to prop up Kerry as a "veteran strong on defense". Fine. Now the opposition is attempting to defunct it. The impression the higher ups in the Kerry campaign seem to present is that they're version should stick and any disagreement should go away. I can't blame them, but they opened themselves up to it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Josh Marshall has summed it up more nicely than I possibly could, so I'll just post his thoughts:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Kerry says one thing, his critics say another. But are Kerry and O'Neil really equal in this?
The military records all back up Kerry. Back in the old days -- i.e., last month --official military records used to be considered at least presumptively accurate. Now, everyone knows or should know that every after-action report or medal citation isn't necessarily the product of an exhaustive investigation. Yet, they're not meaningless. At a minimum one would assume that the burden of proof would lie with those who dispute their veracity.
So, as I say, all the Navy records support Kerry's account. On top of that, all the people who were in Kerry's boat support his version of events.
Think about that for a minute. All the people in Kerry's boat means all the people closest to the action in question support Kerry's account. Some others who were tens or hundreds of yards away, or not even present, contradict his account. Is it really so hard to distinguish between the quality of evidence and testimony that both sides are bringing to the table?
(One could, of course, add to this the fact that two people -- one of whom the Post interviewed -- from the boat behind Kerry's have now come forward to vouch for his account. And the folks doing the accusing are hardly disinterested observers since they are quite open in their contempt and animosity toward Kerry over his post-war anti-war political activism.)
If this were a civil suit, and this was accusers' evidence, it wouldn't even pass the laugh test. And yet the Post portrays the two 'sides' as if they have equal standing. As though it were he said, she said. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And here is an <a href='http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-040821rood,1,2328121.story?coll=chi-news-hed' target='_blank'>excerpt</a> from one of the men who has now come forward: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There were three swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than 35 years ago—three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those officers remain to talk about what happened on February 28, 1969.
One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other.
For years, no one asked about those events. But now they are the focus of skirmishing in a presidential election with a group of swift boat veterans and others contending that Kerry didn't deserve the Silver Star for what he did on that day, or the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts he was awarded for other actions.
Many of us wanted to put it all behind us—the rivers, the ambushes, the killing. Ever since that time, I have refused all requests for interviews about Kerry's service—even those from reporters at the Chicago Tribune, where I work.
But Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown. The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there.
Even though Kerry's own crew members have backed him, the attacks have continued, and in recent days Kerry has called me and others who were with him in those days, asking that we go public with our accounts.
I can't pretend those calls had no effect on me, but that is not why I am writing this. What matters most to me is that this is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be honored for what they did. My intent is to tell the story here and to never again talk publicly about it.
------------------------------------- John O'Neill, author of a highly critical account of Kerry's Vietnam service, describes the man Kerry chased as a "teenager" in a "loincloth." I have no idea how old the gunner Kerry chased that day was, but both Leeds and I recall that he was a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore.
The man Kerry chased was not the "lone" attacker at that site, as O'Neill suggests. There were others who fled. There was also firing from the tree line well behind the spider holes and at one point, from the opposite riverbank as well. It was not the work of just one attacker. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Though the burden of proof <i>should</i> fall on the SBVFT, their accusations have actually served to make Kerry guilty until proven innocent-- and beyond the official military records and the first hand accounts of his crew and others who served in boats alongside him, how much more evidence is possible? It's hard to build a case almost entirely of heresay, but somehow they seem to have made it stick.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
Accepting all of this, how then would you describe the charges that Bush was AWOL from the National Guard? So many involved say the service was complete. All exit documentation, so far as I'm aware, is credible and yet when reporters tell us that there is a "controversy" they proceed to pummel Bush representatives to provide proof. Or is this somehow different?
War crimes are a part of any war, true. But the people who spoke on that Ad no doubt DIDN'T commit any such crimes, and Kerry accusing them of doing so while not only being there himself, but also scrapping together 3 purple hearts to get out while some of them spent 6 years in a POW camp tends to get on their nerves a bit, I imagine.
I've said this before, but I'll keep saying it. I'm tired of people throwing insults and doomsday saying when they don't even know what the hell they're **** about.
I don't see how that video portrays the Vietnam war as a righteous crusade. Crusade itself is an oxy-moron. Those vets are just expressing how much Kerry's accusations of misconduct and outright cruelty hurt them. Last time I check, that was protected under freedom of speech. And don't play the slander card on me, the only time you can stop someone from talking slander is when it's so obviously false and venomous that hordes of people are up in arms about it.
coilAmateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance.Join Date: 2002-04-12Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
<!--QuoteBegin-Spooge+Aug 23 2004, 12:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Aug 23 2004, 12:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, they should at least be examined. Or do we only reserve that level of scrutiny for John Kerry, and take his detractors at their word? As it's been said, John Kerry brought up Viet Nam, so he deserves to have his record parsed with a fine toothed comb. Fair enough-- but Swift Boat Vets, you launch ads offering your own interpretations of events, you're calling down the same thunder. We can't obsess over one version, and then give the other version a perfunctory skim and proclaim 'Good enough for me!' <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree they should be examined. The difference is that prior to Kerry actually mentioning his dismay about the SBV ads in a recent speech, there hasn't been any solid examination of the events. The story presented at the DNC was accepted without question. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Personally, I like to believe that a person - especially a decorated veteran, US senator, and presidential candidate - can be trusted until he gives me a reason to stop trusting him. Have we become such a cynical country that the wealth of evidence supporting Kerry's claim can be thrown away simply because a few voices suddenly start spouting a different version of events?
Regarding Bush's service, Spooge: I'm perfectly willing to accept that he didn't go AWOL. If you can't be AWOL in an un-federalized unit, and Bush's unit wasn't federalized, then he didn't go AWOL. However, his record hardly shines, and there ARE documents backing that fact up.
I'm going to start a new topic about Bush's military record, since Kerry's seems so interesting. I've found some very enlightening scans.
<!--QuoteBegin-Spooge+Aug 23 2004, 05:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Aug 23 2004, 05:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Accepting all of this, how then would you describe the charges that Bush was AWOL from the National Guard? So many involved say the service was complete. All exit documentation, so far as I'm aware, is credible and yet when reporters tell us that there is a "controversy" they proceed to pummel Bush representatives to provide proof. Or is this somehow different? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> From what I've seen, he did complete his service-- I believe there is one small bit of controversy, which is that his DD214 (or whatever the TANG equivalent was) listed all his medals, which did not include two medals given more or less as attendence awards at 3 and 5 years.
To tell you the truth, I've never really lent all that much thought to the AWOL aspect one way or another, because I've tried to follow the paper trail through the various forms and paystubs, and I've simply found it to be too Damn confusing.
While I have criticized aspects of his National Guard days, I don't believe I've ever harped on his being AWOL specifically-- though I occasionally post when I'm drunk/grumpy/drunk and grumpy so who knows . . .
Edit: I do. Kind of. I think the most I ever touched on it was <a href='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=71637&hl=national+guard' target='_blank'>here</a>, and as you can see there are other things which bothered me much more.
At any rate, I don't really think it's a relevant issue, and I think the SBVFT controversy has had just as much exposure in the press.
Of course, we have that whole domino chain going-- Kerry mentions his Viet Nam experience, which opens him to criticism, which is launched by SBVFT, which opens them to criticism, which demonstrates some connections to Bush, which will inevitibly open him to criticism again.
It's a vicious cycle . . .
Edit: Ah, I found some of the documents about SBVFT who had previously praised Kerry . . .
coilAmateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance.Join Date: 2002-04-12Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
<!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Aug 23 2004, 02:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Aug 23 2004, 02:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Edit: Ah, I found some of the documents about SBVFT who had previously praised Kerry . . .
<a href='http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0820041kerry1.html' target='_blank'>Here</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Good find, there.
Comments
So how 'bout that nearly equal Fox News coverage on it, eh? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Just as many articles there as on the CNN site covering the subject, if not more, and that's just from a quick browse.
It's not like someone wouldn't have brought up his military service anyway - if you've ever done anything remotely controversial or interesting in your life, it's fodder for a presidential election.
Oh, and the Fox News article of all places actually confirmed that one man in the group of veterans forming the swift boat group has ever met Kerry in his life. One. So yeah, that was mostly accurate recollection on my part.
Liberal news sources like CNN bring it up because they hate to see their star model Kerry getting picked off like a nasty tick. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah. That's it. It's all a liberal media conspiracy and we need to bust out the tinfoil hats.
Kerry's bringing up his military service was a means to accomplish two goals. First, it was a way to bolster his own service record in comparison to Bush. Bush, at best, used family connections to get into a NG champagne unit and bypass the waiting list to get into the National Guard and at worst went AWOL. Second, his military service functioned as a buffer against claims that he's weak on national security. National security has long been a component of the Republican campaign standard and getting a piece of that pie has always been on the Democratic agenda.
Another thing. You criticize Kerry for only spending 4 months in Vietnam, but ignore the reasons why he did so. People who had been injured several times in combat usually got a cushy job. They either got transferred stateside, like Kerry, or they got sent back to rear-line units to work supply lines or administrative duty. Kerry, with three purple hearts under his belt, certainly qualified for the transfer.
Of course, Bush did a great job of keeping Charlie out of American bars.
Actually, I believe you've successfully been disinformed-- from what I have gathered, the crew serving with Kerry has sworn up and down that their boat was not equipped with the grenade launcher/grenade which would have produced his injury. Searching for the link now. . . however, it's kind of odd that Max Cleland, who was also injured in Viet Nam (though he left three limbs behind) <b>also</b> had his events re-mixed by the GOP to include a self inflicted grenade wound.
Edit: Ah, found it. From <a href='http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/08/20/kerry_comrades_have_credibility_on_their_side/' target='_blank'>the Boston Globe . . .</a>
Excerpt:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Myself, Pat Runyon, and John Kerry," says Zaladonis, the engineman on Kerry's first swift boat, "we were the only ones in the skimmer."
"There definitely was not a fourth," says Runyon. Though the two assume they took hostile fire, both men acknowledge they aren't completely certain. But they also firmly reject the claim that Kerry somehow wounded himself by using an M-79 grenade launcher.
"I am reasonably sure we didn't have an M-79," Zaladonis said. "I didn't see one. I don't remember it."
Runyon says the only weapons the trio had were an M-60 machine gun, two M-16 combat rifles, and, possibly, a .45 caliber pistol. Is he 100 percent sure there wasn't an M-79 grenade launcher in the boat?
"I wouldn't say 100 percent, but I know 100 percent certain that we didn't shoot them," replies Runyon. He does remember Kerry having trouble with his M-16. "His gun jammed or he ran out of ammunition -- I don't know which -- but he bent down to pick up the other M-16," he says.
Zaladonis, who was manning the machine gun, recalls Kerry telling him to redirect his fire to another area. "If we got return fire, I am not sure," he said. But he adds that there's one thing he does know: "I know that John got hurt." And not by shrapnel from a grenade launcher.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's kind of like the inverse of the misinformation about George W. Bush's DUI. Why'd he get pulled over? Uh . . . . . er . . . . driving too slow! He was driving in such a <i>safe manner that he arroused the cops' suspicion</i> (when in reality, he drove off the road into a hedge-- so they were being <i>slightly</i> charitible on their interpretation of events).
How can we spin their injury so it's a) hard to trace, b) modestly plausible, and c) makes them look either <i>totally</i> incompetent or <i>completely</i> retarded? <b>Self inflicted grenade wound!</b>.
Even so, Bob Dole, War Hero, says thus:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"As we approached the enemy, there was a brief exchange of gunfire. I took a grenade in hand, pulled the pin, and tossed it in the direction of the farmhouse. It wasn't a very good pitch (remember, I was used to catching passes, not throwing them). In the darkness, the grenade must have struck a tree and bounced off. It exploded nearby, sending a sliver of metal into my leg--the sort of injury the Army patched up with Mercurochrome and a Purple Heart."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And there were fringe groups against Bush 41 telling us that he bailed early from his aircraft, dooming several of his less fortunate crewmates to their deaths. Didn't McCain receive special treatment for the Viet Cong for betraying his country and the remaining POWs?
I say these not in a ****-for-tat, but to demonstrate the ridiculous charges that always follow our servicemen who dare to use their service as a campaign talking point. Republican or Democrat, I believe that they served, and they certainly deserve to talk about their service (one of the things which I <i>really</i> dislike about Kerry was that he made comments critical of Bob Dole for using his war experience on the campaign trail . . . . which now makes things a little <i>awkward</i>.)
There's a <i>very</i> fine line between a flesh wound and a body bag, and most of these men are more poignantly aware of that than the majority of us ever will be.
Besides, if we're going to go with technicalities, and John Kerry's speaking of his wounds opens the flood gate of potential criticism, then let's be entirely honest and say that the ties from SBVFT to the Bush administration are really compelling (remember the loose criteria that we were told ties Al Queda to Saddam? Using that as a benchmark, we <b>must</b> conclude that these guys are <i>seriously</i> connected), then we get to look at him too, no?
Sayeth he:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you see what would have become of the alternate reality GW Bush who wasn't connected enough to vault over others in the TANG. <i>Not</i> impressed.
This has been discussed, you cannot go AWOL in the national guard unless your unit was federalized. Bushes unit was never federalized. Sencond do you honestly believe that they would send the son of the head of the CIA into battle, that would be great if he got caught.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> say these not in a ****-for-tat, but to demonstrate the ridiculous charges that always follow our servicemen who dare to use their service as a campaign talking point. Republican or Democrat, I believe that they served, and they certainly deserve to talk about their service (one of the things which I really dislike about Kerry was that he made comments critical of Bob Dole for using his war experience on the campaign trail . . . . which now makes things a little awkward.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Previous elections involving war heros have had the same type of attempts to discredit the canidat. It seems to be a common tool anymore.
I for one am not upset about the ads. If your participation in the war is going to be a big part of your platform, than be prepared to have it attacked.
It seems to me that these veterans, the majority of which have been active for many years, began their efforts based on Kerry's congressional reports and anti-war activities immediately following his return. While this book <i>Unfit for command</i> does question some of the specifics regarding Kerry's activities in Vietnam, their main focus is on his ability to lead and make sound judgements.
Meanwhile, the Kerry campaign and its supporters have propped this up as some extremist outcasts who are trying to "question John Kerry's patriotism". Rather than accept the judgements of these men, their lives must be examined by political coroners and their credibility must be removed. This amuses me due to the fawning, starry-eyed praise that was given to the veterans who stood on the platform with Kerry during the DNC.
On the other side, the Republican pundits are swinging this book like some holy hammer pretending that it proves Kerry is a lying flip-flopper. But when pressed on the specifics there's plenty of shifting and whimpering. This because, as I noted earlier, it's not the main purpose of these concerned veterans.
I recommend taking all of this at face value and ignoring the political manipulations from the campaigns. These men disagree with putting Kerry in the Presidential seat. Agree with them, or not. Then move on. But this nonsense about sueing the RNC for violating the McCain-Fiengold act is a very bad idea. The Kerry group will find itself up a creek without a paddle. Know this: both sides have and will violate this law. Mostly because the law is rediculous in its written form but also because they're "above the law" politicians.
EDIT: stupid grammar.
heaven forbid someone voice their opinion. They are entitled to their first admendment rights, and they should feel free to exercise it.
Well Bob Dole has joined in on the fraye.
<a href='http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/29319.htm' target='_blank'>In recent news.</a>
Well, there are cases where some of the men affiliated with this group (and I'll try to find links here) wrote glowing reviews of his abilities while in Viet Nam, but quickly revised their assessments, based on his post war activities. Is their anger clouding (or intentionally misguiding) their judgement?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Rather than accept the judgements of these men, their lives must be examined by political coroners and their credibility must be removed. This amuses me due to the fawning, starry-eyed praise that was given to the veterans who stood on the platform with Kerry during the DNC.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, they should at least be <i>examined</i>. Or do we only reserve that level of scrutiny for John Kerry, and take his detractors at their word? As it's been said, John Kerry brought up Viet Nam, so he deserves to have his record parsed with a fine toothed comb. Fair enough-- but Swift Boat Vets, you launch ads offering your own interpretations of events, you're calling down the same thunder. We can't obsess over one version, and then give the other version a perfunctory skim and proclaim 'Good enough for me!'
I think 'fawning, starry eyed praise' might be a bit much, but they were the closest to Kerry and seemed to agree about the way things happened. Again, I know the Swift Boat vets offer a very different picture, but who calls the balls and strikes in a baseball game-- the home plate umpire, or the first base umpire? Proximity <i>does</i> matter. Additionally, the only people who have attempted to counter their claims are the Swift Boat Vets, and they're having a really hard time just keeping their story straight (Larry Thurlow, when you finally figure out a) exactly <i>why</i> you got your bronze star, and b) why yours was legitimate but Kerry's was not, even though they were awarded for the same incident and similar actions, give me a call).
This is a bit of a tangent, but let's face it, political criticism doesn't happen in a vacuum. So-- we have this book coming out by someone who can be seen as more than a little bitter. There are also rumblings about their partisanship. Obviously, they want to generate some controversy and noise so they can drum up sales.
Interestingly, these are the exact same reasons we were told to dismiss the claims of people like Paul O'Neil and Richard Clarke out of hand.
Can't have it both ways . . .
That being said.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, they should at least be examined. Or do we only reserve that level of scrutiny for John Kerry, and take his detractors at their word? As it's been said, John Kerry brought up Viet Nam, so he deserves to have his record parsed with a fine toothed comb. Fair enough-- but Swift Boat Vets, you launch ads offering your own interpretations of events, you're calling down the same thunder. We can't obsess over one version, and then give the other version a perfunctory skim and proclaim 'Good enough for me!' <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree they should be examined. The difference is that prior to Kerry actually mentioning his dismay about the SBV ads in a recent speech, there hasn't been any solid examination of the events. The story presented at the DNC was accepted without question.
I consider this entire fiasco to be a Democrat political campaign snafu. They wanted to prop up Kerry as a "veteran strong on defense". Fine. Now the opposition is attempting to defunct it. The impression the higher ups in the Kerry campaign seem to present is that they're version should stick and any disagreement should go away. I can't blame them, but they opened themselves up to it.
Josh Marshall has summed it up more nicely than I possibly could, so I'll just post his thoughts:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Kerry says one thing, his critics say another. But are Kerry and O'Neil really equal in this?
The military records all back up Kerry. Back in the old days -- i.e., last month --official military records used to be considered at least presumptively accurate. Now, everyone knows or should know that every after-action report or medal citation isn't necessarily the product of an exhaustive investigation. Yet, they're not meaningless. At a minimum one would assume that the burden of proof would lie with those who dispute their veracity.
So, as I say, all the Navy records support Kerry's account. On top of that, all the people who were in Kerry's boat support his version of events.
Think about that for a minute. All the people in Kerry's boat means all the people closest to the action in question support Kerry's account. Some others who were tens or hundreds of yards away, or not even present, contradict his account. Is it really so hard to distinguish between the quality of evidence and testimony that both sides are bringing to the table?
(One could, of course, add to this the fact that two people -- one of whom the Post interviewed -- from the boat behind Kerry's have now come forward to vouch for his account. And the folks doing the accusing are hardly disinterested observers since they are quite open in their contempt and animosity toward Kerry over his post-war anti-war political activism.)
If this were a civil suit, and this was accusers' evidence, it wouldn't even pass the laugh test. And yet the Post portrays the two 'sides' as if they have equal standing. As though it were he said, she said.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And here is an <a href='http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-040821rood,1,2328121.story?coll=chi-news-hed' target='_blank'>excerpt</a> from one of the men who has now come forward:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
There were three swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than 35 years ago—three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those officers remain to talk about what happened on February 28, 1969.
One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other.
For years, no one asked about those events. But now they are the focus of skirmishing in a presidential election with a group of swift boat veterans and others contending that Kerry didn't deserve the Silver Star for what he did on that day, or the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts he was awarded for other actions.
Many of us wanted to put it all behind us—the rivers, the ambushes, the killing. Ever since that time, I have refused all requests for interviews about Kerry's service—even those from reporters at the Chicago Tribune, where I work.
But Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown. The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there.
Even though Kerry's own crew members have backed him, the attacks have continued, and in recent days Kerry has called me and others who were with him in those days, asking that we go public with our accounts.
I can't pretend those calls had no effect on me, but that is not why I am writing this. What matters most to me is that this is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be honored for what they did. My intent is to tell the story here and to never again talk publicly about it.
-------------------------------------
John O'Neill, author of a highly critical account of Kerry's Vietnam service, describes the man Kerry chased as a "teenager" in a "loincloth." I have no idea how old the gunner Kerry chased that day was, but both Leeds and I recall that he was a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore.
The man Kerry chased was not the "lone" attacker at that site, as O'Neill suggests. There were others who fled. There was also firing from the tree line well behind the spider holes and at one point, from the opposite riverbank as well. It was not the work of just one attacker.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Though the burden of proof <i>should</i> fall on the SBVFT, their accusations have actually served to make Kerry guilty until proven innocent-- and beyond the official military records and the first hand accounts of his crew and others who served in boats alongside him, how much more evidence is possible? It's hard to build a case almost entirely of heresay, but somehow they seem to have made it stick.
War crimes are a part of any war, true. But the people who spoke on that Ad no doubt DIDN'T commit any such crimes, and Kerry accusing them of doing so while not only being there himself, but also scrapping together 3 purple hearts to get out while some of them spent 6 years in a POW camp tends to get on their nerves a bit, I imagine.
I've said this before, but I'll keep saying it. I'm tired of people throwing insults and doomsday saying when they don't even know what the hell they're **** about.
I don't see how that video portrays the Vietnam war as a righteous crusade. Crusade itself is an oxy-moron. Those vets are just expressing how much Kerry's accusations of misconduct and outright cruelty hurt them. Last time I check, that was protected under freedom of speech. And don't play the slander card on me, the only time you can stop someone from talking slander is when it's so obviously false and venomous that hordes of people are up in arms about it.
I agree they should be examined. The difference is that prior to Kerry actually mentioning his dismay about the SBV ads in a recent speech, there hasn't been any solid examination of the events. The story presented at the DNC was accepted without question. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Personally, I like to believe that a person - especially a decorated veteran, US senator, and presidential candidate - can be trusted until he gives me a reason to stop trusting him. Have we become such a cynical country that the wealth of evidence supporting Kerry's claim can be thrown away simply because a few voices suddenly start spouting a different version of events?
Regarding Bush's service, Spooge:
I'm perfectly willing to accept that he didn't go AWOL. If you can't be AWOL in an un-federalized unit, and Bush's unit wasn't federalized, then he didn't go AWOL. However, his record hardly shines, and there ARE documents backing that fact up.
I'm going to start a new topic about Bush's military record, since Kerry's seems so interesting. I've found some very enlightening scans.
From what I've seen, he did complete his service-- I believe there is one small bit of controversy, which is that his DD214 (or whatever the TANG equivalent was) listed all his medals, which did not include two medals given more or less as attendence awards at 3 and 5 years.
To tell you the truth, I've never really lent all that much thought to the AWOL aspect one way or another, because I've tried to follow the paper trail through the various forms and paystubs, and I've simply found it to be too Damn confusing.
While I have criticized aspects of his National Guard days, I don't believe I've ever harped on his being AWOL specifically-- though I occasionally post when I'm drunk/grumpy/drunk and grumpy so who knows . . .
Edit: I do. Kind of. I think the most I ever touched on it was <a href='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=71637&hl=national+guard' target='_blank'>here</a>, and as you can see there are other things which bothered me much more.
At any rate, I don't really think it's a relevant issue, and I think the SBVFT controversy has had just as much exposure in the press.
Of course, we have that whole domino chain going-- Kerry mentions his Viet Nam experience, which opens him to criticism, which is launched by SBVFT, which opens them to criticism, which demonstrates some connections to Bush, which will inevitibly open him to criticism again.
It's a vicious cycle . . .
Edit: Ah, I found some of the documents about SBVFT who had previously praised Kerry . . .
<a href='http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0820041kerry1.html' target='_blank'>Here</a>
<a href='http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0820041kerry1.html' target='_blank'>Here</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good find, there.