Aquilla, I don't really feel that tone is necessary at all. If the medical records are not on the web page then I don't know what to tell you, I'm certainly not going to go scour google for hours looking for them because it really doesn't matter to me. If it matters to you and you think it is "smoking gun evidence" you should be the one looking for them or requesting them from the military.

I could just as easily ask you to produce Bush's "missing" duty records and you would be telling me the same thing -- that you can't. Would that change your opinion of Bush? Doubtful, so you really should stop pursuing this dead end of missing medical records because it isn't going to get you anywhere.

The combination of the post I linked and the post DaffyGrl just made put together some pretty strong accusations that it is really someone like Karl Rove holding the strings here. You linked a few posts you made alright, but you have never commented specifically on the ties the group has to the GOP or that these tactics are very similar to the ones employed against McCain in 2000.

Your claim, Cube Jockey, was the following from your post.....



That's what you wrote. Now you "don't know what to tell me". Does that mean you retract your claim that the Kerry campaign "showed everything"? If so, that's fine at least from the standpoint of your post, but it does raise a legitimate question for the Kerry campaign. The DNC has raised the stakes by claiming that Dr. Letson wasn't the doctor who treated Kerry's wound in December of 1968. They have called him a liar. Perhaps they will back up that claim with after-action medical records, but I'm not going to hold my breath......

As far as DaffyGrl's post is concerned, I was hoping someone would bring that up.....

This is the response to the Boston Globe article today. From that response....



We seem to have a difference of opinion here don't we? Now, how could that be? Why I bet it's those nasty Republicans beating up on a poor unbiased "journalist" from the Boston Globe who has no stake in this election at all. That explain it? Well, not really. Mike Kranish, this supposed journalist is one and the same person who is writing this book for the Kerry-Edwards Campaign! He also wrote this book.

Just another "unbiased source" like the John Kerry website to you, CJ?

As of right now Aquilla, I believe this:

This is being paraded as a direct quote from Elliot and if he did not in fact say those words then the Boston Globe should really review its ethics. If he did in fact say them, then the source you cited doesn't make a difference, we have the primary source on record here.

So do I chose to believe some one off conservative website or a respected newspaper with respect to the accuracy of a quote? I think I'll take the paper's word for it for now. If they are proven wrong then shame on them for printing the quote.

It seems to me that Captain Elliott is a champion flip-flopper! Maybe he doesn't know EDITED TO REMOVE ATTEMPT AT BYPASSING PROFANITY FILTER-all about the situation. Maybe it depends on who's paying him the most?

Edited to add another interesting point (O'Neill is coauthor)

Sounds like old grudges to me.

DaffyGrl, if you are suggesting that we "follow the money", it would seem reasonable to look at Mike Kranish's motives behind this article first. I'll bet he's not writing the Kerry-Edwards Campaign book for free......

As far as the O'Neill - Kerry debate is concerned, "who won" is a pretty subjective thing. Why not let everyone read it for themselves and make up their own mind about it.

And lets add yet another member of the Swift Boat Group that changed his stance right after Kerry decided to run for president.

In 1996 Lonsdale was praising Kerry


But now that Kerry is a contender for president Lonsdale has this to say:


So which is it - he was a great leader instrumental in winning the war (the 1996 pre-Swift Boat Veterans group statement) or what he is saying now? So there is yet another chink the in credibility of this 527 group. I wonder how many more will be found as reporters dig further in to this story. What a tangled web we weave here.

These guys aren't standing up to scrutiny for good reason, they are not being truthful about the events there for various reasons - some of them political others I suspect having to do with bad blood from the war.

Edited to add:

I don't think his motives matter, because he has a direct quote from Elliot in Elliot's own words saying the affidavit is bogus. Now if you want to question the direct quote, you'll need something more than leading us down a rabbit hole with who pays Mr Kranish's salary.

The link you cited just shows us the affidavit - kind of worthless when the person who signed it is discrediting it.

Edited again to add:
There is also an article in the LA Times (reg req'd) that is interesting and calls into question Hoffmann's motives:



So again, I think credibility is at stake here. It appears that Hoffmann's motives for denigrating Kerry are suspect as well. It appears to me that his reasons for coming out against him have everything to do with a little squable Kerry had with him during the war and nothing to do with his actual record.

Kerry on the other hand was right in his assessment of the strategies being taken in Vietnam as history proves, the brass just didn't like that very much and now it is pay back time.

Edited to add for a third time:
I ran across this little article on Mediamatters.org. The article details the background of the co-author of Unfit for Command.

Most of the quotes by this guy are unfit to print here on AD, so please follow the link and check out his background. I can tell you this much, the people behind this book couldn't have stooped much lower to find a junkyard scrap dog than this guy:


This guy is definitely credible in my opinion, we should elect him as president I think. You can also check out his Posts on Free Republic to see what kind of a guy he is.

Edited to Add for a fourth time:
And to give a little bit different answer to the question: Will bringing up this issue be beneficial to the Bush camp or will it backfire?
Here is a page that compares the Bush records and Kerry records side-by-side - Service Records. Admittedly the site is partisan, the information is not - it is merely compiled here in one place.

I think it is pretty clear who did their part and who has something to hide. I don't recall journalists having to petition for Kerry's record under the freedom of information act, he supplied it himself it was the other guy that was reluctant to release it.

OK, I see how it works.... A guy who works for the Kerry campaign is above reproach because his "motivation doesn't matter". Yet, another who doesn't support Kerry is suspect because he's simply a Republican, maybe, but he must be, right? OH well......

There was one very interesting part to the LA Times article that was linked in the previous post that I think may give us all some insight into who John Kerry is and what he's really all about.....



Perhaps this explains why Kerry "volunteered" for Riverine duty, and why he bugged out of country at the first opportunity after he had collected some medals. This guy thinks he's the second-coming of JFK! Now, maybe this is a really partisan thing to say, but I find that pretty weird to be quite honest.

That isn't correct Aquilla, here's the deal:

On the one hand you have a reporter for a major paper who has a direct quote from Elliot (the person responsible for an affidavit that contributed to a book that paints Kerry in a negative light) where he expresses regret for signing the affidavit and says it was bogus in so many words (see above for his direct quote).

On the other hand we have your source which self identifies as a "conservative news source" that basically shows everyone the affidavit from Elliot.

I don't really see the point of showing us the affidavit when the guy that wrote it is disavowing it. As I said earlier Kranish's motives for writing the article or who pays his salary is completely irrelevant. Unless you are suggesting that he just made up the quote by Elliot, coerced him to say those words or badly misquoted him then I'm not sure you have much ground to stand on. So are you suggesting that Kranish (and Elliot for that matter) is lying Aquilla? If not, then the affidavit you linked has been debunked, because the primary source has admitted it is not accurate.

That still leaves more than a few credibility problems with the people attacking Kerry right now that have not been addressed.


Well at this point that is just speculation on your part and it will remain as such until you have some evidence to back it up. From my perspective I don't really care why he went to Vietnam - he could have done it because he wanted to advance his career (probably not an odd thing for those in the military, wars usually lead to promotions) or because he wanted to see the world, or because he was running from a bad relationship. The point is he went voluntarily, he was there for 4 months and that is 4 months longer than George W. Bush served in Vietnam. Bush was home protecting Galveston from Charlie, a dangerous duty to be sure.

Check again, CJ. Captain Elliot has released a new affidavit. It is dated, 6Aug2004. That means today, Friday, to those of you who don't understand "military stuff" and prove their ignorance by such things as making disparaging remarks about flying a military fighter, even in peacetime.

Splish-Splash. What's that noise? Oh, it's the sound of rats deserting a sinking swift boat.

Case in point: Veteran retracts criticism of Kerry
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | August 6, 2004

WASHINGTON -- A week after Senator John F. Kerry heralded his wartime experience by surrounding himself at the Democratic convention with his Vietnam ''Band of Brothers," a separate group of veterans has launched a television ad campaign and a book that questions the basis for some of Kerry's combat medals.

But yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book.

Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star.

''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

Elliott said he was no under personal or political pressure to sign the statement, but he did feel ''time pressure" from those involved in the book. ''That's no excuse," Elliott said. ''I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...icism_of_kerry/

Playa hatin'. Straight-up playa hatas. A bunch of angry, bitter jerks who have a axe to grind with Kerry and are all too happy to play hatchet men for Bush/Cheney 2004. John O' Neill has 30 years of history hating John Kerry. It dates back to 1971 when O'Neill was recruited by Richard Nixon's hatchet man Charles Colson to form a counter-group opposed to Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Coulson explained why he created his own little Frankenstein's monster to sic on John Kerry.

"He was a thorn in our flesh. He was very articulate, a credible leader of the opposition. He forced us to create a counterfoil. We found a vet named John O'Neill and formed a group called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace. We had O'Neill meet the President, and we did everything we could do to boost his group." - The New Yorker, 1/5/04

O'Neill and Kerry butted heads on television on The Dick Cavett Show. Obviously O' Neill carries a grudge for a long time.

But O' Neill is also a lawyer. An attorney with the firm of Clements, O'Neill, Pierce, Wilson and Fulkerson. One of his co-partners is Margaret A. Wilson, who was George Bush's general counsel 1998-2000. She was a lawyer at Vinson & Elkins before she worked for Bush. Vinson & Elkins was Enron's main law firm -- the very firm that facilitated Enron's frauds. Vinson & Elkins was also the firm that spawned Alberto R. Gonzales -- Bush's current general counsel.

Curiousier and curiousier.

Ted Sampley, creator of Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry was called by Senator John McCain, "one of the most despicable people I have ever had the misfortune to encounter." McCain -- who has campaigned for President Bush this year -- said of Mr. Sampley: ''I consider him a fraud who preys on the hopes of family members of missing servicemen for his own profit. He is dishonorable, an enemy of the truth, and despite his claims, he does not speak for or represent the views of all but a few veterans.''

New York Times. New York, N.Y.: Feb 14, 2004. pg. A.15

Statement of Senator John McCain:

"I strongly caution reporters who may be contacted by or are interested in Mr. Ted Sampley and the various organizations he claims to represent, and his opinions on the subject of Senator Kerry, or any subject for that matter, to investigate thoroughly Mr. Sampley's background and history of spreading outrageous slander and other disreputable behavior before inadvertently lending him or his allegations any credibility.

I am well familiar with Mr. Sampley, and I know him to be one of the most despicable people I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. I consider him a fraud who preys on the hopes of family members of missing servicemen for his own profit. He is dishonorable, an enemy of the truth, and despite his claims, he does not speak for or represent the views of all but a few veterans. The many veterans I know would think it a disgrace to be considered a comrade or supporter of Ted Sampley."

I guess people will have to choose whom to believe about Kerry---John McCain or two right-wing rottweilers like Sampley and O'Neill. Senator McCain cautioned us about these clowns who served as Bush's attack dogs during his own campaign back in 2000. How strange is this feeling of deja vu.

I believe this is what is described as a no-brainer.

Whoa chill those attack dogs out aquilla, and stop making assumptions about my background of which you know nothing of.

So what exactly was misquoted Aquilla? He sure doesn't say in the Affidavit, it would have been nice to know what he really said. Was it out of context or were words stuffed in his mouth? Did he say he regretted saying those things or not?

Besides, the guy lied about one affidavit, why would anyone believe he isn't lying about this one because maybe a reporter caught him off guard and he said something stupid. An affidavit only has value if you are credible.

"I said bad things about Kerry... no I didn't mean to say them ... no I was misquoted..." Sheez and you say Kerry is a "flip-flopper".

Just to add from one of Cube Jockey's sites he provided was another person doing a flip-flop.

Swift Boat Vets chairman's evolving story about knowing Kerry in Vietnam



Which is it he knew him or he did not cant have it both ways and be credible.

Now that it's becoming quite clear that Kerry's 'heroic' service isn't anywhere near what he'd like you to believe it was, it is time to move on. He milked that 4 month slice of his life for all it was worth, embellished it as best he could and then turned on those who continued to fight so valiantly. To this day he treads on the backs of the true heroes of that era, using them as a springboard to gratify his ego.

Most conservatives preface their comments on Kerry by thanking him for his service to the country in Vietnam. I no longer do. He has revealed himself to be nothing more than a borderline traitor.

If we focus on his voting record and his plans for the future we will see him defeated handily come November. Hillary is drooling with the knowledge that she will bear the Dems mantle in '08. This will lead to a Rudy vs Hillary match that guarantees a safer nation through '16.

So I guess in a way Kerry's 'war record' really will play a role in improving our nation's security.

The good Lord truly does work in mysterious ways.

Awww... and just when the conservative lies are being exposed, you want to stop looking and call it a day? Fat chance!

I think the best quote came from Beladonna earlier and few picked up on it:



Representing dead people??

Yes, it sounds like a vendetta against Kerry's anti-war position (and maybe a bit of his anti-Bush positions as well). Not saying that Kerry's record was spotless, but I think this whole attack ad thing is a pathetic attempt that will keep getting exposed for having more to do with politics than with policy... or even reality. It's a sideshow. A distraction. Meant to keep you from looking at what's really important. And I say that even for Kerry continuing to bring up his service.

Anyone want to talk about Social Security, the deficit/debt, the slowing economy, 140,000 soldiers trapped in a desert hellhole, religious doctrinaires attacking the bill of rights, etc.? Oh, wait, those are boring topics.

The swiftboaters are just a fly by night operation. It's one thing to speak out because it truly means something to you, it's quite another to wait three decades before publishing your material. There are plenty of things that don't add up on this one thats quite troubling. First, a poster made the assertion about O'Neill basically being a hired gun, others have not addressed his actions in '71 against Kerry, and instead, supposed democratic actions have brought up, as if that justifies it or something,I don't follow the logic behind that at all. Here's a more specific accounting of this guy:

-source

We should be having a serious conversation as to whether or not this RNC hired gun(trained by Nixonites) is a good source of information. Is there any evidence to suggest that he doesn't have an axe to grind?

Roy Hoffman can't make up his mind of the extent of his working and "knowing" Kerry during Vietnam and has flip-flopped repeatedly. George Elliot, one of the accusers, retracted his story. It all ads up to a sham mud-slinging campaign that unfortunately, will suck in the gullible and the uncritical.

No matter how much the left wants to gloss over the boston globe article, it is a false and dishonest report.

Since Elliot's affidavit has been released as of Aug 6th, the same day as the disingenuous Boston Globe article. There have been multiple posts by those here referring to it as gospel.

http://www.swiftvets.com/article.php?story=20040806153208686

Thank you so much for the link, Sleeper. John O'Neill is definitely the authority I was looking to in order to set things in their proper perspective.

I don't personally give a rat's derriere about the Boston Globe article, whether it is dishonest or not. It is irrelevant.

How hard the Republicans are working to discredit John Kerry to compensate for their own candidate's lack of a distinguished war record! Even to the point of using a--horrors!--professional litigator to take up the standard and charge up the hill to assault the character of a person who was decorated by the same Navy in which he served. My gosh, what was the Navy thinking, anyway?

Pardon me if I do not give this whole attempt at character assassination the same weight as so many ardent debaters in this thread have. The facts stand--Kerry was there, Kerry saved lives, Kerry was decorated for his service. That's good enough for me.

Paladin, i could really give a rat's behind about what Josh O'Neil had to say. The meat and potatoes of the link was the affidavit included in the link. I think based on that affidavit we can all agree that the Boston Globe article was disingenuous and dishonest journalism.

And O'Neill isn't a shill for the GOP?? Why not address that? The Boston Globe thing is a completely different matter that has no bearing whatsoever on the accusations against Kerry.

Where to start... how about with this little nugget:


Yes, or to those others of you who prove their ignorance by such things as making disparaging remarks about combat veterans. But of course, I can see how it's really the height of ignorance to criticize Mr. Bush for his so-called 'service' as a FANGer (as they were often referred to by soldiers actually serving in Vietnam), while it is the absolute height of respectable debate to attack Kerry because of some confusion about some of the details of his combat duty...



Yeah. I guess that since Kerry won medals in combat, but was really just a big faker, the military system of handing out medals is totally bogus. I await eagerly your call for all vets to return their medals - since obviously the military awards them totally randomly.

And now that it is becoming clear that Bush's service with the ANG was dubious at best, let's leave it at that and move on.

And now that it is becoming clear that Bush's stock-selling trick with Harken was probably illegal, or at least questionable, let's just move on, for the "Good Lord's" sake.

And now that it is becoming clear that Bush lied to the American people about the reasons for going into Iraq, let's just move on.

Hmmm, and I really fail to see how being against a war, and speaking out about it, is turning "on those who continued to fight so valiently." Of course, this is an easily understandable view - if you happen to live in a totalitarian state. Thank the "Good Lord" we don't!



Since we seem to have two contradicting tales, all coming out in the last several days, the logical response is 'let's give this at least a little time to sort itself out.' Since the Globe article sources and quotes Elliot, if it is wrong, this is not just 'dishonest' reporting - it is illegal, and they ought to be sued for libel. It is, however, fairly amusing to read conservatives - so willing to give Bush the benefit of a doubt when the whole story isn't known - jumping so quickly and completely to a conclusion about this story.

But Quark, That's exactly the point some of us here are making.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that it hasn't and doesn't happen. I have personally known people who have been discharged for falsifying paperwork to receive medals. Every E-7 and above in the 101st Airborne Division, regardless of duty or combat seen, was awarded the Bronze Star. I'm not saying that Kerry didn't earn his Bronze or Silver Stars, but things that ought not to, do happen.


Dems didn't and still haven't left that alone, despite lack of evidence.

My point is that calling for anyone speaking against Kerry to be muzzled is hypocritical if it's coming from the same people who called Bush a deserter. When all of the facts come out, Kerry will either answer tough questions, or be exhonerated, and the Swift Vets will fade into obscurity.
Kerry brought this level of investigation on himself. He made his 4 months in Vietnam 35 years ago THE keystone of his campaign.
As much respect as I have for any veteran, I do not agree with holding them up for sainthood, just because they served. The military has just as many worthless, lying, conniving, selfish 'you-know-whats' as anywhere else. Kerry is probably squeaky clean, but let's not silence dissent because he served. Nobody rates that treatment.


Agree completely.

or
so willing to give Kerry the benefit of a doubt when the whole story isn't known - jumping so quickly and completely to a conclusion about this story.

And as I said in a previous post to Aquilla, this affidavit doesn't set the record straight and tell us what he really said, unless you are suggesting that quote was complete fiction and Mr. Kranish never in fact talked to Elliot. An affidavit is rather meaningless unless it is being used in a trial and the person giving it has a shred of credibility.

Now what I think is the more likely scenario is Kranish did in fact interview Elliot and either he got a few minor things wrong or he used a comment that was supposed to be "off the record". If he didn't then he has a pretty inventive imagination.

So, either way -- whether you believe the affidavit or Elliot's interview the guy has no credibility anymore. So let's just be done with him shall we?

Do you think there is any validity to the claims that John Kerry's vietnam record isn't what it may seem?

Yes.

Will bringing up this issue be beneficial to the Bush camp or will it backfire?

Not if someone else does it for them.

Kerry made a stink about his military record at the convention to win male white votes. By doing so he made his military record an issue and issues are fair game for debate. Reap the whirlwind. Similarly, Bush's WOT, the environment, civil liberties, and other issues are fair game, even though his campaign has so far decided to gloss over points of any real substance and sticks to "feel good" highlights of his presidency that have more to do with obscure themes like strength, leadership, etc. Who will argue the president doesn't want to do what's best for the country without falling into the snare of conflicting ideologies and turning the tables on the challenger?



Just because I like playing the devil's advocate, here's some stuff on O'Neil's co-author of Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, Jerome Corsi:



The elves are coming out. Kerry's elves.

I don't consider myself a candidate's rescuer. It annoys me to hell that Congress would blow a consensual BJ out of proportion when a majority of Americans cheat (the Speaker being no exception). But what a sordid state of affairs that we should pretend to hold John Kerry up to standards we can't maintain in our current "war" for political posturing.

Oh, like John Kerry did before the US Senate? Or, are we going to parse this as well by saying the men Kerry called war criminals weren't really vets, they were still there.....



I am well aware of the term "FANGer", I heard it used often. Funny thing is one thing I never heard was someone refusing an air strike from an ANG strike aircraft and to my knowledge nobody ever turned down an evac out of a hot LZ because it was a National Guard helicopter.

Kerry is nothing more than a 'say anything to anyone to get elected' liberal. That's why he flip=flops. That's why he is running on his 4 months in country as if that somehow qualifies him for the Oval Office. Sorry bubba, but it don't.

This mope doesn't deserve any respect and is a shameful representative of what was once a proud and distinguished party. He is a disgrace to the uniform and a real and present danger to the nation today.

Just once I'd like to see one of these liberal idiots have the gumption to stand up and admit their liberalism and put it out there for the people to decide. This gutless wonder thinks that those 120 days give him the right to come home and defile those still at risk. To defame those who laid their lives on the line. To tosstheir medals over a fence in protest.

Will his war record work against him in the fall? You better believe it will. And thank the good Lord for that!