Just as a reality check:



Obviously public opinion (at least at that moment) see things in a different light.

By the way, the link that you provided talks about "150 highly decorated veterans who corroborate Kerry's story about atrocities. Am I misreading it?

And another thing... regarding atrocities, which Titus and Aquilla deny were a usual and mundane occurence. An Ohio newspaper won a Pulitzer Prize - journalism's highest honor - for its series about atrocities comitted in Vietnam by U.S. soldiers. That is how the investigation was done:

Allow me to quote from one of their articles:



If these are not "atrocities on a daily basis" I don't know what is... Atrocities were comitted, and there were many, many more of them than just Mai Lai. There're also so many more of them of which we will never know because of military "code of silence" that Kerry dared to brake and for which he is being blamed.

This isn't a controersy in my eyes. What I think it is is a unsubstaniated right wing hatchet job on John Kerry. Look at the facts, the organizations questioning Kerry's record are financed and led by very conservative people in many cases with connections to the man Kerry is running against. For example, the leader of Swift Boat veterans for Truth is Merrie Spaeth, a republican public relations consultant, the leader of Vietnam Veterans against Kerry is Ted Sampley, a man who runs a buisness based on lying to families of soldiers killed in Vietnam and has previously called John McCain a KGB agent (John McCain said "The many veterans I know would think it a disgrace to be considered a comrade or supporter of Ted Sampley."), wintersoldier.com doesn't provide any names but it is supported by the very conservative Free Republic Network, Greeberet.net uses articles written by Ted Sampley but also doesn't provide any names, one of the most high profile Kerry war record detractors John O'Neil arrived in Vietnam after John Kerry left and KerryLied.com calls John O'Neil a brother in arms but also provides no names. To be fair I did find one site whose author said they were an independent but it was of very poor quality and made my head hurt looking through it (plus no author was listed). I did however manage to find a link to an article attacking Farhenheit 9/11 so chances are they're conservative.

This is a very close election and slander is easier than defending your own canididate. All the anti-Kerry websites are either maintained by hucksters like Ted Sampley or politically motivated. Since they are politically motivated it's impossible to know whether the people attacking Kerry are doing so because they think his service in Vietnam was of poor quality or because they don't like what he's done since. Calling his medals into question is another story entirely. The burden of proof is on you because the Navy gave them to him and nobody protested, back before they knew he was running for president. It's easy for a Bush supporter who was a commanding officer of Kerry to say in retrospect Kerry wasn't so great.

English Horn



Big deal... historicaly, candidates running off a convention always get a boost. Watch Bush even out with Kerry after the RNC.



Yes, you did. Kerry says over "150 honorably discharged soldiers" attended the Winter Soldier investigation in Detroit shortly prior to the congressional hearing.

An intersting thing about those hearings...

Winter Soldier Fraud



Some of those "150 honorably discharged" soldiers didn't even know they were attending an investigation. Some provided shakey or straight out false testimony. When asked in detail about the incidents, sidestepping was abundant.



43 soldiers out of how many that served in Viet nam from 1965 to 1975? 43 out of almost 3 million. "Normal occurance"? I don't think so.

Rancid Uncle



I've told you what my thoughts on Ted Sampley are. I told you that I do not agree with what he has said and that he does not represent veterans with any honor when he spreads lies like that.

But do not confuse Ted Sampley with the thousands of other veterans out there who do not support Kerry. After that, what do you have?

A Republican PR consultant? No! Jeeze, if I had known he was a PR consultant for those right-wing pigs, I would of never used that site!



A conservative network? Supporting...*gasp* conservative groups? It can't be.

Then you attempt to discredit greenberet.net/kerry because of a Ted Sampley article, ignoring the other articles by Time Magazine, the London Daily Telegraph, NewsMax, WorldNet Daily, the Washington Times, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the Boston Times, and the Village Voice. The Village Voice! When did the Village Voice become part of the "vast, right-wing conspiracy"?



All I could find on John O'neil's history as he was a leader in the Vietnam Vets for a Just Peace group. His debate with John Kerry on the Dick Cavett SHow in 1971 can be found at WinterSoldier.com. His new book Unfit for Command challenges these claims of heroism.

Apparently you have to be non-conservative to challenge any of these war hero claims.



So because -some- of the sites and articles from said sites are supported or maintained by conservatives, they're politically motivated? So should I dismiss all the talk from the left on Bush's time in the TANG because... it comes from the left? No. You don't have to take it for cannon doctrine... but you can't dismiss the evidence against Kerry.

As for the medal bit. I've already explained why his fellow sailors wouldn't drop dimes on him. I may have been in the military for only a short time, but one thing I know is certain. With few exceptions, you don't complain about everything that happens. In this case, Kerry turned around and screwed his battle buddies. Once that happend... the vets turned on him.

DTOM, I was addressing the second question for debate, which is about Bush.

I have a correction: Election Day is about three months away, not two as written in my last post. How could I have skipped October? Subconscious worry of an October surprise or just a senior moment?

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if the allegations against Kerry are valid, which I see them as not being so. Ultimately, it does matter how such allegations will play if used by the Bush campaign or those pushing Bush.

One type of voter who could very well be a major force in electing Kerry was not even born when Vietnam was going on. The effect would be much like going after Kennedy's WWII service record when he was running against Nixon in the 1960s.

These days I do believe people are more skeptical about allegations. Don't think you'll see the Demos pressing on Bush's service record and other iffy records from his past, including such things as a bout of alcoholism and cocaine addiction. The records from the last few years are sufficient and public, and publicized aplenty.

The vast left wing conspiracy will move toward positive messages. The vast right wing conspiracy, so it appears, is stuck on negatives. Even if it tries positives, they might come off as negative.

Better stick to God Bless America and Fight Terrorism.

What evidence? There is no evidence. There are plenty of conjectures that Kerry isn't a war hero because he's a *gasp* democrat and they hate America. There are plenty of unsupported attacks by people who didn't witness any of Kerry's actions in battle and have no evidence. And above all, these attacks are coming from the right wing which has an interest in attacking Kerry's record right now.

For one I'm not the one making conspiracy theories here. And second that article is totally wrong. Every respected organization that has investigated the charges that there are Americans still in South-east asia has found that they are untrue.

That and actually have evidence. Based on the fact that one, all the attackers are very biased and two, they have no evidence how can you believe them that Kerry isn't what the Navy says he is. Isn't it possible they are just lying because they don't like Kerry's politics? Doesn't that make a lot more sense than a Navy, pro-Kerry conspiracy.

You know what I found on John O'neill, he arrived in Vietnam after Kerry left! It is preposterous for him to say Kerry isn't a war hero. How could he have known? Nobody would believe someone like that except in the lunatic asylum that is partisan politics.

Let me see if I can figure out the chain of speech here.
-You can't speak about Kerry's war record if you aren't a veteran
-You can't speak about Kerry's war record if you aren't a Vietnam veteran
-You can't speak about Kerry's war record if you weren't in Kerry's squadron
-You can't speak about Kerry's war record if you weren't on Kerry's swift boat
-You can't speak about Kerry's war record if you meet the above criteria, but are a republican

Because if you dare to ask questions or bring up points that may, if proven true, provide some insight as to Kerry's fitness as commander in chief, you are obviously partisan and very biased.
RU, I'm hard pressed to understand how you come to the conclusion that people like the signers of the petition from Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, who were all in Coastal Division 11, had absolutely no evidence or witnessing of Kerry's actions. Swift boats almost never operated alone, so it is quite possible that Kerry's actions were witnessed by more than 4 of the 5 crew of his own boat that have been on his campaign.
You're trying to paint it as a sinister group of neo-cons with no affiliation to Kerry. That's just as dishonest as someone calling Kerry a coward with no evidence whatsoever.

Where was this standard of proof when the Bush AWOL story was plastered all over the news? Every liberal who could find a microphone called him a deserter, most of whom didn't know the National Guard from the Boy Scouts.

JFK (John Forbes Kerry) had his PT-109 event in Vietnam and has exploited it for all it was worth and then some. I think sympathy is unwarranted for all but the most outlandish claims against him.

BTW, John O'Neill took over Kerry's swift boat after he bugged out of country, considering at least a majority of the crew remained, at least for awhile, that would definetly give one some insight and primary sources for Kerry's actions.

Kerry served in the Navy from 1966-1970.

http://paknews.com/PrintPage.php?id=2392&d...ws2=headingNews

This was the type of behavior about which Kerry testified to the Congressional subcommittee. This, and the My-Lai massacre provide evidence of atrocities committed by some, not all, American soldiers during the Vietnam war. Should he not have said something about it?

Yes, Republicans and the Veterans Against Kerry have every right to criticize his war record, but the fact remains that his term of service and the bravery he exhibited during those months in Vietnam are well-documented, and they are better documented than the term of service in the National Guard by the incumbent President, who has been hard-pressed to find as many former comrades who would stand up to verify his attendance.

Fair is fair--both candidates as public figures who aspire to the next Presidential term are having their service records questioned and criticized. O'Neil and his cohorts should be proud of themselves for making necessary the prominent position Kerry's Vietnam service had to take in his speeches to answer their criticism. The unfortunate part is that this was time better spent on issues that will affect each one of us much more than what transpired during the Vietnam war.

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

A lot of Vietnam veterans think so, though I think most of the resentment coming from them are his inexcusable acts after coming back.


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


Depends Bush is not directly bringing this up, people who served with him and Vietnam veterans who remember his Judas act in front of the congressional and the defamatory false statements in his book are his own fault no one elses. Those birds are coming home to roost and will only help Bush.

1. All I know is that I smell a rat when no one has contested his vietnam record until 30 years later. Oh!! That's right he is running for president and anything is fair in love and war and politics. I am assuming that Bush and his cohorts will use the same smear campaign that they used against their old Republican comrade,John McCain. But that is to be expected.

2. No. I am very happy they have brought up this issue. Now we will compare the military records of both presidental contenders.

Bush: When Bush applied to join the National Guard, he was number 500. Just a few days later he was permitted to join the National Guard and passed over 500 other people.

Bush: We have at least 3 months where he has no proof that he was paid(payroll records couldn't be found, then they were destroyed, then they were found again) (do I hear the words flip-flop, oh that was Kerry???). AWOL??????

Kerry: He volunteered. Didn't take the easy way out. It doesn't matter what kind of spin the Bush camp puts on his medals.

And what makes me absolutely sick is the accusations that Kerry doesn't deserve to be the Commander-in-chief. This comes from a camp,that their hero didn't attend all of his WEEKEND meetings in the NATIONAL GUARD in the harsh war enivornment of the good ole USA. Please excuse me while I go to regurgitate.

I only have 1 other thing to say: Bring it on!!!

Are you denying that there were atrocities committed during Vietnam? I think the reason why there seems to be an anti-Kerry campaign with regards to Vietnam veterans has nothing to do with his war record. They are angry that Kerry testified about the atrocities committed during Vietnam. How this act is inexcusable is beyond me; I think people all need to ask themselves, if you witnessed the same thing in a war, the killing of innocent civilians indiscriminately, would you remain silent about it?

If you would, shame on you.

Let's say a soldier comes out and goes before Congress and details wider abuses in prisons besides Abu Ghraib, many involvng tortures and sometimes murder. And let's say these were all orders coming from commanding officers citing the prisoners were enemy combatants and didn't require the Geneva Conventions. How many of you would call this testimony inexcusable? How many would call it un-American?

Atrocities occurred in Vietnam, Kerry never said all the soldiers committed atrocities, he made clear that command was aware of things, but never said everyone was a "baby-killer." He spoke the truth about war crimes that went on during Vietnam. Why is there a push to try and revise the history of this war?

Kerry got medals, the atrocities happened, he testified about the atrocities, went against the war. Were his protests against the soldiers? No, he was protesting the people sending him and others to die in a war that was not worth it.

I think the detractors come resentment of Kerry's testimony because many soldiers were wrongfully treated after the war (that's not Kerry's fault) and political affiliation. Just because 1000 soldiers don't like him, that tells you nothing, given the two probable reasons above.

Ill get to what I highlighted in a sec. First off, you're sidestepping the issue by turning this into a "atrocities vs. lies" debate.

Of course there were heinous acts committed by a handful of soldiers throughout the war. No one is arguing that.

What I am, in part, arguing is that Kerry implies, in his own sworn testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, that war crimes were a day to day occurance. Now logic would dictate that, if it were only the same handful of soldiers in the same unit, the soldiers in question would have garnered much attention. But Kerry is implying that this is a widespread issue.

By Kerry implying false events or misdeads took place, this only adds to the profile of a man other officers and crew members call "unfit to command".



Actually, that tells you a lot. When Over 200 of Kerry's fellow officers question his character, his ability as a leader, and his actions... that tells you a lot.

Lets say you come back from a war testify in front of congress on things you "heard", describe in a book "atrocities" committed by your unit that never happened and become a darling of the far left and RUINED your reputation and your life, I think you would be more than a little resentful. If he started running for a national office touting the very thing he sought to rob from you, I would imagine you would be furious as well.

Let's just go ahead and take a look at what Kerry actually said and quit beating around the bush shall we? Kerry's Statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971

The "day-to-day basis" comes from the testimony of the winter soldiers, not something Kerry invented.

Secondly, I agree with you that the implication is there, but that doesn't in anyway mean that every single vietnam vet participated in these acts, just the same as every soldier in the middle east has not tortured Iraqis. There is evidence building to suggest a policy as far as our interrogation techniques in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and I don't see anyone suggesting that every soldier over there is responsible for that. You should not make the assumption here either, Titus.

If you read the rest of his testimony, I think you'll find that it is not only very forward thinking but also inline with virtually every historian that has since analyzed the war with the benefit of hindsight.

That bolded statement actually holds a lot of truth today.

In reading this testimony, it also becomes clear that Kerry is not testifying here on his personal behalf (as there is no possible way he could have witnessed every one of these actions), but rather is in general speaking out against the war on behalf of the Veterans Against the War (VVAW). It seems that distinction isn't being made by some - in other words the he was only there 4 months and couldn't possibly know anything argument. The group he was representing was at least a thousand men and with their collective experience it is plausible they could have experienced all these things. Additionally, the historians that ahve written our history of vietnam were in many cases not there either, does that make their histories invalid?

I believe that Kerry's detractors (on this issue) are horribly oversimplifying what "service in Viet Nam" means. Kerry seems to have been pragmatic and thoughtful those years ago. He inquired and found out that he would likely be drafted and so he enlisted to get it over with. He asked for swift boat duty after learning about the death of his best friend (he had been serving on a ship running blockade and became restless apparently). However, the duty was not supposed to be suicide missions run up tiny water ways; it was supposed to be shore patrol. So no, Kerry was not charging into death like Rambo, however he did go.

It is dishonest to continually spout about Kerry serving "only four months". He served in other capacities beside swift boats before that. If you would discredit his other duties prior to the swift boats (or afterward in the states) then you discredit modern soldiers who have "less dangerous" duties in today's military. I consider the whole proposition to be uninformed or worse, derisive. Duty is duty. My good friend earned 6 medals in the first Gulf war. One was for doing the vast majority of construction of latrines and other facilites on base (even though he is a helicopter aero scout) The medal he earned was the same that could have been earned by an infantryman for service above and beyond during a fire-fight. He also told me of an entire intel unit that was awarded the bronze star for their efficient service. Should they be attacked online for earning an award while not having received a sucking chest wound??

The military has its own reasons for giving the awards it does and if anyone has a problem with it they should bring it to the commander-in-chief and not those who receive the awards.

I am not surprised that Kerry's detractors in this thread have not brought up his silver star. I'm sure they looked it up, found it to be more than deserved (and heroic) and chose to simply ignore the evidence. I read excerpts from Kerry's memoires (penned while in Viet Nam) which were turned into a biography of sorts. You can read a bit about it here:
Kerry's war experience

According to this writer he interviewed every person who served directly with Kerry and found not one detractor. However he did write this book before an election year.
I think it would serve everyone here to read Kerry's own thoughts he wrote as a young man during his war experience. It is interesting reading and informative about the early development of a complex man. But honestly, lurid details of Bush's binge drinking days would probably be more titillating.

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

I will agree that a portion of his Vietnam service record is under scrutiny and like most of these arguments the truth is probably some where in between, but for one moment focus on what is undisputed.

An idealistic young man who thought it was his patriotic duty to try and make a difference. A young man who possibly knew that to make a real difference you had to be ‘in the action’, not state side, not protected by daddy’s connections and not from the other side of the Canadian border. A young man who not only believed that in order to make a difference you had to be in the bush, but one who requested to be put there.

A brave young man who regardless of what veterans say who didn’t serve with him, regardless of what his opponents say, saved the life of another young soldier while putting his own life at risk. By all accounts that is undisputed.

Then it takes him a few months of swift boat duty to realize what anyone who has studied the conflict or who has heard stories from the Vets: this was a massive Charles Foxtrot.

So then he becomes a disenfranchised veteran who like many were disgusted with the US policies and the manner in which they were being conducted. So disgusted at the wasted loss of life that he testified in front of a Senate committee and told them what we now call the truth.

What is undisputed regarding John Kerry and his Vietnam experience shows me that this man has guts.

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

If the GOP thinks they have a loaded gun here then they really need to be careful how they use it or it’ll back fire. I don’t see how it could be beneficial if they attack portions of Kerry’s military service when Dubya’s entire service (from admission to missing) is questionable at best. I can only hope this is brought up in a debate.

Some VNV's that I know, including a helicopter medi vac pilot in the regiment or whatever you call it, that 'We Were Soldiers' was made from are more honest when it comes to talking about what they actually did then. He told me personally that they used to take people into the air and try to get information out of them and when they wouldnt talk they threw them out the door alive and then said 'next'....
He is not shy about it, claiming its just the way it was.
Funny though that he is furious with Kerry for telling tales out of school to the authorities, as supposedly this is just not done amongst soldiers.
He says many vets hate Kerry for this reason.

I'm getting a real sense of this whole Kerry war record debate. It is this: Never point out something bad that American soldiers might be doing. Especially don't do it if you are or were one of these soldiers. Don't talk badly about any war in which American soldiers are or were active, and never ever admit that such a war was a mistake to start out.

What's still a question in my mind is where does this attitude come from? Is it something that happens in basic training? Something about high school spirit indoctrination? Or is it from childhood, some sort of loyalty training? Honor thy parents, right or wrong?

I do get the emotion that we never want to waste our soldiers' lives, and so to question a war in which American soldiers are or were involved is to also question the meaning of their sacrifices. I got that in spades when visiting the Vietnam memorial and talking with vets from that and other wars.

I also get it that emotion clouds judgement and can lead to wrong conclusions. Kerry was outspoken about the war, and he's a smart enough guy that he knew what possible ramifications would come of his actions. President Bush was not outspoken about the war. He took no personal risk if he was against it. Conversely, he was not outspoken for the war. He took no personal risk if he was for it.

So Kerry suffers from the slings and arrows of his opposition. Meanwhile, his opposition rallies around their leader in defense, right or wrong, courageous or cowardly.

Interesting. Not convincing, but still interesting from a human behavior standpoint.

Thinking back on my visits to The Wall, it always seemed to me that those Vietnam vets who either thought the war was a mistake or didn't particularly care hung near the monument. Those who will never admit to Vietnam being a mistake took up space away from the monument. This was a while back though, fourteen and more years. Times were different.

I also remember when The Wall was first proposed, the design was heavily criticized by some veteran groups. After visiting it the first time, walking down its long path, feeling the immense sadness of it -- I knew why. There is no glory in that monument. Only sacrifice. The only uplifting part is coming back up on the other side, away from it. The only beauty to be found is in the people who visit.

The monument is a great work of art, subtle in its message but powerful in its impact. The artist must have known that the only beauty would be in the people who visit.

Somehow I'm getting a parallel here with the criticism of The Wall and the criticism of Kerry's war record and what he said to Congress. I think the attitudes and emotions involved come from the same source.

I just don't know what that source is. Maybe it doesn't matter.

Umm... wait a minute... I just gave evidence that showed that the Winter Soldier investigation was a sham due to the false testimony and fake witnesses. You're going to stick with that sham of an investigation?



No, but usually, historians do not intentionally falsify testimony...and even witnesses! And seeing as how one of their 150 "witnesses" turned out not even knowning he testified... because the VVAW needed all the names they could get... this puts forth the idea that he wasn't really representing the soldiers, but the political agenda of a handful.

Now, about Kerry's Silver Star...

Kerry's Silver Star

Now there is some controversy with the circumstances behind the events.

First, protocol at the time dictated that the appropriate course of action would be to return fire and seek evasive action. Some construe his action as endangering the crew as they were susceptable to enemy fire.

Other's question whether or not Kerry needed to kill the man who some say was not a threat because he was already seriously wounded by the .50 cal machine gunner on Kerry's swift, Tom Belodeau.

Kerry's Silver Star Controversy

Scroll down to where it says "Kerry's Silver Star-Analyzed, It's possibly bogus." Now, if you ignore the title, read the piece. It explains the discrepancies.

I can't say what I believe, but I think the descrepancies warrant that Kerry should not claim that to add to his"war hero" status.

Now you know what... he may have something in his Bronze Star.

According to the official citation signed by John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy at the time, Kerry's boat hit a mine and the blast threw a man overboard. Suddenly automatic gun fire erupted from the riverbanks and, with shrapnel from the mine in his arm, swam to the man overboard under fire and pulled him to the boat.

From what I've tried to look up, this appears to the the least contested medal Kerry recieved. The only argument I've seen against this was the fact that since this award merits action above and beyond...etc, and he was responsible for his crew anyway, that he didn't deserve that.

Well, I disagree. When you do that under enemy fire, that's pretty gutsy. I'll give him that. Unless I find something else in the meantime, it appears the Bronze Star was warranted.

But that appears to be it.

Three Purple Hearts, all under scrutiny, one surely exaggerated.

One Silver Star, very questionable, action might even be construe as a war crime.

One Bronze Star, apparently the only one with little to no contoversy.

Kerry's war record is very, very questionable.

Looking at the records Kerry released about his first Purple Heart,
So what's the most heroic way to get shrapnel is your arm? Does one jump up in the air so you are injured better? How is not being critical injured say anything about your character? Please explain.

According to the man who acutally was the machine gunner on Kerry's swift boat, Fred Short, there is "no doubt" that Kerry saved them that day (in case you don't believe me here's a Fox News article about that. Other's can question all they like but the men who were with him when he earned the Silver Star all say he deserved it. They hadn't talked to Kerry until 1996 but every one of them say he earned his Silver Star. That and the fact that the Navy actually gave it to him shows that the evidence for Kerry's heroism is much stronger than a couple of right-wing conspiracy theorists tossing out possibilities.
Maybe Kerry should have tested your theory and maybe he'd be dead. That seems like the only honorable thing Kerry could have done in Vietnam, die. That or not go, because then he's a draft dodger and you can attack him for that.

RU,

Good point. If the actual Bush campaign ever tries to yank Kerry through questioning his service, the Kerry campaign will then have an opening to challenge Bush's courage (not draft dodger but definately Vietnam dodger) and the lack of service by most of his cabinet, including the VP (who really runs things).

I think such a tactic would be close to political suicide. Definately a shot in the foot.

Thanks for the Fox link. Sure shoots down the fake arguments trying to wriggle in from the ditches. I suppose the next one will be that Short is lying to get a fat government job after Kerry's election.

Whatever. I doubt anyone's being influenced by these attacks on Kerry.

What does that link prove? It sure as hell doesn't prove anything beyond the fact that Kerry ordered the swift beached. The link states that Kerry, and another man charged at the VC guerilla. It doesn't mention anything about what happend inbetween that and the common knowledge that Kerry administered the coup de grace by shooting to death the wounded VC, which consitutes as a vilation of the Geneva Conventions.

Now how about this for a fake argument...

(excerpt from the earlier link I provided)



So what the hell is it? Either the guy was up and running or he was wounded and going down.

By no means does this link dispell this argument that easy.



You know what...Kerry got lucky. Who's to say that if he didn't do that, the swift (which was vulnerable when it was beached) came under attack from even more VC's with RPG weaopns. Then you know what...he would be dead. He took a chance and came out on the better end.

I didn't really read into the thread very much, I've got my answers...

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

Before you throw stones too, look at who threw the first stone.


Is John McCain a KGB spy? Maybe... but I really, really doubt it. Does this add legitimacy to the claim? I think not.

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

In perfect world the Bush campaign should sink like the titanic for not denouncing lunatics that side with them, but no, this is partisan politics where having good policies matters less than good hair, white teeth and a good smile.



Titus:



What "the hell" does this say about Kerry's character? Your a vietnam vet right? You took a chance going over there, you didn't die, welcome back, but I won't respect you because you just got lucky. I don't hold any respect for this nation, or it's sinister sentiments, but I do have a tendency to respect war veterans, because they didn't fight a war they chose for themselves, they chose a war that they were suckered and sucked into, some by choice, some by indoctrination and some kicking and screaming all the way. I don't care what you did while you were in Nam, I wish you hadn't had to have gone, and I resent the government that sent the poor of this country over to kill the poor of theirs. I know that conservatives dislike Kerry, but there is point where the want to believe stretches further than the truth.

I don't think that war records should matter at all in a presidential election. War is not a game, we are just comparing penis size and kill counts. The focus on ludicrous crud like military records is only to avoid having to focus on issues that neither candidate wants to address. As long as the show goes on, and this episode feels just like last episode, voting will be decided on factors like such: "Oh, definetly Bush and not the other guy, he gives me the Kreeps." ---(actual quote from a light-rail rider, emphasis and craaazzzy spelling all mine)






*Edited to reply after reading more of posts

Holy Cow! They're actually doing it . . .

Anti-Kerry ads upset McCain who calls for Bush campaign to repudiate them

Will the Bush campaign condemn the ads? Time will tell. So far not.

Actually doing what? Making this statement? What gives John McCain the right to speak for Riverine nam vets? He wasn't there, he was a naval aviator. So, how does he know what the truth is? Did he treat one of Kerry's wounds? No, he didn't, but one of the people in that ad did. That guy was lying? Do you have any proof of that? Does McCain?

From The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.......

Does it even really matter? The Republicans seem like the only ones questioning the record!

Kerry saved someone's life. It looks to me like the Republican's are just jealous they don't have a bona-fide war hero. Oh wait, there's little proof that their man even showed up for service...and a fit was thrown when attempts were made to look into it--now the Kerry campaign hasn't thrown a fit, even over this incredibly disrespectful and downright nasty commentary.

I take all of that back--maybe the Republican's are wishing they had nominated a real man like McCain!



Well, at least he went. More than you can say about the war-mongering, partiotism, flag-waving guy on the other side.

Speaking of Kerry's camp throwing a fit:

Link

Somehow, I don't remember any liberals calling for squashing dissent when allegations of desertion were brought against GWB.

That or course, was thoroughly debunked Here

I also don't remember the resume qualification of 'war hero' being a problem when Clinton ran.

Here is what John McCain said in the SF Chronicle today:

So Aquilla, now John McCain doesn't have the right to judge Kerry, defend him, have the courage to speak up when he thinks someone is telling a lie? You seemed to be defending your right to judge Kerry earlier:


McCain went on to say this:


Smell like tactics straight out of Rove's playbook? Sure does to me, and it should. This article on Disinfopedia is worth checking out. You should read the entire article, but this quote does a lot to sum up the motivation behind the "swift boat veterans".

A lot of the members of this group have Republican ties going a long way back as far as smear campaigns go, hmm I'm trying to figure out how this is a different tactic than Bush pulled on McCain in 2000. Oh yeah I remembered, it isn't.

Where did I ever say John McCain didn't have the right to say what he said? I just took issue with what he said and his call for the White House to "refute" what might indeed be the truth. John McCain can defend John Kerry until the cows come home, but he wasn't there. The people in this advertisement were. I was merely pointing out that they have the right to say what they believe to be the truth. Every bit as much of a right as John McCain does.

So you are saying that John McCain is lying? He claims that the men in the ad were not there.

So if you are calling McCain a liar, don't you think that you might need to submit some evidence of that?

Also, in case anyone actually cares about reading unbiased accounts of Kerry's record instead of poorly designed websites full of conspiracy theories you can check out this page where Kerry has posted his entire military record in PDF form, happy reading.

If you watch the ad cube it highlights the men in the photograph as they are speaking in the ad. These men were there.

McCain is incorrect in stating that those men did not serve with Kerry.

CJ, I have enough words to share here without you putting them in my mouth. I didn't say McCain was lying at all. I said he wasn't there and thus he might not know the truth. The people in this ad were there, it is possible, even though some of them may be ::::gasp::: Republicans might actually know the truth. In either case, they have the same rights as John McCain to tell what they believe to be the truth.

As far as your so-called "unbiased account" on Kerry's service, oh pulleeeze....

The accusers in question all served in Coastal Division 11. None served in Kerry's 5 man boat crew. But Swift boats almost never operated alone. Is it so far fetched for Kerry supporters to realize that these men just may have been able to witness Kerry on multiple operations? Claiming that they were not there is simply false.
I'm not concluding that they are telling the truth or that they are lying, but to dismiss the claims out of hand is mighty hypocritical considering many of the charges leveled against Bush. If the roles were reversed and a supermajority of Bush's fellow Swift Boat Commanders took the stand that they felt he was unfit to serve as CiC, I have a feeling that it would be brought forth as gospel by the left.

Man aquilla, what a tricky semantics game you are playing here - from your original post:

Hmm, you didn't use the words "lying" directly, but I think that we are all educated enough here on AD to read between the lines. Let me ask you this Aquilla, if John Kerry had said this would you be saying he didn't call John McCain a liar? I'm wagering a guess here but I think there very well might be a whole debate topic on it by now started by someone here.


Doesn't get more unbiased than showing you the actual military documents and not leaving any out. Do you think he changed the PDFs or possibly left some out? I think you may have the wrong guy in mind, George W. Bush is the one with holes in his record. That's ok if you don't really want to look at the primary sources, I'll be more than happy to dismantle arguements put up by these websites with an agenda all day.

Edited to add:

This also came from the same article I linked above DTOM:

It comes down to who are you going to believe. I have shown that this group's credibility and motives are suspect as is their funding. I choose to believe the guy Kerry saved as opposed to these 13 people with a clear political agenda. The guy Kerry saved backed his story up, and clearly would have had to back it up when he got the purple heart too -- unless you are suggesting Kerry was thinking of running for president in the 2004 election all those many years ago and got his buddy to lie.

Applying occams razor to the scenario makes it clear which one you should believe,

Who are you going to believe? On one side there's Jim Rassmann, who got a pretty good view of himself being saved by Kerry, Kerry's crew, the United States Navy and non-partisans like John McCain. On the other side there's a group of people who didn't serve on Kerry's boat, are financed by conservative money, give money to the Bush Campaign and liars like Ted Sampley. Who are you going to believe? One of them is right, one of them is wrong. Can anyone say that they believe they people who weren't on Kerry's boat and seem to have very questionable motives? It looks to me like there's no contest.

RU, If you had one person who was in GW's squad (5 guys) who said that he was Alabama Air National Guard pilot of the year, and you had 25 guys who were in GW's platoon (30 guys) who said he was a turd......
And they all worked together, since a squad is part of a platoon, and they all operated on multiple missions together, who would you believe?


My my. It looks like Mr. Rassman is not to be trusted by liberal standards. He gave money to the Kerry campaign. That must mean he is partisan and biased. Right?

Link

That's a differance of opinion. Of course some people dislike John Kerry. I believe that. There is a huge difference between disliking someone and saying they didn't earn their medals. If you attack someone like that you better have evidence and be a credible witness. As my signature says .

Bill O'Reilly - not exactly a liberal mouthpiece - strongly criticized the ad on his program and his guest Dick Morris said that the ad is "stupid", "irresponsible" and most likely "will not win one vote for Bush". Morris' points were:

• You don't criticize your opponent on his strongest suit (Kerry was in combat and Bush wasn't)
• It's obvious from the ad that the "beef" that veterans have with Kerry stems from his post-Vietnam activities and not from his combat record
• It's doubtful that $500,000 to produce and run the ad were collected without some high-profile republican donor - which makes it easier for the Dems to link the ad to the White House (which would be a nightmare for Repubs)

He may have left some out. According to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the records listed at the same link you provided are incomplete. Here is what they have to say about it.......



Ok, specifically at issue, or at least one of the things at issue appears to be Kerry's first Purple Heart. Dr. Louis Letson claims to be the doctor who treated Kerry for his wound and is featured in the ad and on the website saying it didn't meet the criteria for a Purple Heart. His statements are available on the link I referenced. This is significant because according to the DNC legal warning to television stations for them not to run the ad, Dr. Letson was not the doctor who treated Kerry in December of 1968. This would seem to be a pretty easy conflict to resolve I would think because there should be some sort of documentation of the treatment Kerry received for his wound. I would think it would either say Dr. Letson treated it or not. However, I haven't been able to locate on the link you provided any sort of medical report concerning this. There is the citation and certificate for the Purple Heart there, but I haven't been able to locate any after-action medical reports. Perhaps I missed them? Perhaps you could direct me to them?

Edited to add.....

The White House response to the ads....

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

I guess so since there is no such thing as an accurate perspective on history. Any analysis that attempts to look into the past will be predjudiced by its own bias, so its more than possible that different eye witnesses will have a very different perspective on events that happened in Vietnam.

What I find surprising is that any one would entertain the notion that these other Swift boat sailors have any greater credibility given that they obviously have their own political agenda. It seems to me that Kerry did what he had to do and was decorated for his actions by the US navy. Any whining about it now is just sour grapes.

As can be observed by this thread, the conservative camp is almost sick with the fact that Kerry is a decorated veteran whilst their man is widely beheld to be a fraud.

Whether or not these perspectives are true or not are apparently more or less besides the point.

If the roles were reversed, I have no doubt that the conservative camp would be all hammer and tongs for painting Kerry as a draft dodging playboy addict whilst promoting GW Bush's Vietnam heroics for all they are worth.

There is no objectivity in this debate, just a lot of pointed fingers and warm words.

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

I think it will be beneficial since a great many conservatives appear to believe that such military adventures are of paramount importance and so the notion that Kerry is really a 'bad guy' will be a soothing balm to off set any queasiness they may be feeling with regards to their own candidates miserable military record.

So far, I have seen no real proof that the swiftboat critics "were there." How close? Fifty, one hundred yards? Not up close and personal, that's for sure. I have seen evidence that these guys are making bucks doing this for someone.

How shameful. I have never met a Vietnam vet who would sell out comrades in arms for a handful of coin. Hope I never do. They are not only disparaging Kerry but his entire crew. Someday soon these critics will have to answer to their Maker.

And what could they possibly say? We campaigned guttlessly against a great man for a bag of gold?

That doesn't play well in Paradise.

Anyway, still waiting for the Bush campaign to do damage control. Silence is acceptance of the ad. The McCain statement is damnation of the campaign. I don't think the Bush campaign has a clue as to how terrible this whole thing comes off.

Let's just say that Bush served honorably during Vietnam. It's a stretch, but what they heck. He isn't serving honorably now.

Well, AM, don't keep us hanging, please post said evidence. I've seen evidence that Kerry's 'Band of Brothers' are on the Kerry payroll. I will look for that link, will you?


Fifty yards isn't up close and personal? In combat? Please.......

Only 4 of the 10 'Band of Brothers' were on Kerry's boat crew. This then means, by your definition, that over half of his brothers weren't up close and personal to Kerry, so how could they possibly have witnessed anything?

As I've said before, Swift boats operated in pairs in the smallest operations, and more in larger. If Kerry supporters can be said to be eyewitnesses, so can his detractors.


I'm sorry to say that I have, hell I've served under a few. There are and have always been some turds in the military, just like any other segment of society.

From Aquilla's article -

So basically he avoided the question entirely and called for an end to soft money ads. Of course everyone knows that will never happen (nor will the Republicans stop running them) so it is a rather empty call to action.

I find it very strange that some of the conservatives aren't connecting the dots here. Given what we know happened to McCain in 2000 and what is happening to Kerry now with his war record, how can you possibly lend so much credibility to this shoddy evidence? This is very clearly an indirect and underhanded attack from the GOP.

Ah. The pro and cons

Pro: Make no mistake that Karl Rove is a devious scroundrel and be sure to not under estimate him. If anyone by hook or crook can win the election for Bush, he is the man.

So much for the pros

Con: John McCain has already called the ads, concerning a group of former swift boat servicemen, dishonest and dishonorable. McCain has also asked the Bush campaign to repudiate this ad.

When asked to repudiate this ad, Mr. McClellan said this:



You will notice that Mr. McClellan did not repudiate the ad. He only said we are calling for a cessation to all the unregulated soft money activity. Hardly a answer to the question. But that has always been McClellan way of dealing with a question. In fact that has the trademark of the Bush adminstration.

I expect more anti-Kerry ads of similar trademarks in the future from this adminstration.

What else can they do. They have nothing positive to run on. Lets propose a checklist.

Economy: Ops only 32,000 new jobs this month and only 78,000 in June. One more bad month and I would consider it a trend instead of an aberration.

War in Iraq: No much hope there. 900+ deaths and 6,000+ wounded.

Environment: That is a hopeless cause.


Oh well, back to the anti-Kerry ads and pray for rain.

P.S. McCain said this was the same thing that happened to him in the year 2000. So much for his ads praising Bush. Sounds like a whitewash to me.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is a 527 organization, independant of the GOP. The White House position is that all 527 groups are really attempts to skirt the campaign finance reform laws, and that has been my postion as well. For example in this thread, I raised this question....

Is MoveOn.org an end run around the spirit of McCain-Feingold?


popeye47 responded with this.....



In this thread, started by you, Cube Jockey concerning Negative advertising, you stated the following.....



Now, along comes Swift Boat Veterans for Truth with their ad of what they believe to be the truth about John Kerry and all of a sudden, the ABB crowd goes ballistic. The Bush-Cheney campaign didn't pay for that ad and indeed has taken the position as clearly spelled out by the White House statement that the 527 loophole should be closed, closed for ALL groups.

It sure seems to me that a whole lot of the discussion here seems to center around who's ox is being gored.

Although I believe this ad may backfire on Bush, I am left wondering why Kerry can run his campaign on his war record, but those who disagree with his accounts should be silenced?

The SBVT website states:



Don't they have a say too?

Not so fast Aquilla, you seem to have completely ignored this post of which the Disinfopedia link I supplied is very relevant. You may not take that as absolute proof of the tangled web of organization for the Swift Veterans Group, but it at the very least calls into question their motives. Like I said before, read the whole thing because pulling quotes from it doesn't do it justice.

Given the history of the Bush campaign's tactics (with John McCain in 2000), the fact that some of the steering committee members for this group were selected by Nixon to denigrate Kerry all those years ago it starts adding up to reasonable doubt in my mind.

This isn't about Free Speech, I have never said they had no right to say what they said. It also has nothing to do with my opinion for or against 527 groups, it has to do with the difference between lying and truth. You can say what you want about MoveOn.org, but they are not relevant to this discussion. They were around long before the 2004 election race, this group however was formed fairly recently - for one purpose.

1.)No, it won't hurt him especially since there is no merits to their claims. This is pure politics. McCain ran into the same thing in South Carolina against Bush, it's just that the RNC folks hope to "McCain" Kerry. Swiftboat vets for truth? The guy who wrote the book never served on a swift boat with Kerry, and was only on a boat after Kerry came back to the states. Not only that, but George Elliot, Kerry's superior, has stated that he was wrong in filing a false affidavit against Kerry and that he felt pressured to sign due to John O'Neill's book coming out. That group is funded with GOP donor money, is coordinated by a RNC staffer, and it's head(O'Neill)was a convenient vet for Nixon and now Bush, to trot out to try and go after Kerry. Click here to get the whole scoop.

2.)I think it will be beneficial, the book is already #2 on the Amazon list and most people don't investigate claims that deeply. It's a pretty good PR damage inflicting exercise if there ever was one.

They do have a say, but when you have Republicans reeling from what they are saying, and as in McCain's case, actually attacking the accusations, we have the right to call these people nefarious, questionably motived liars, especially based on the evidence provided by Cube Jockey.

How in God's name can anyone in the right think it's a good idea to attack Kerry's war record when their representative is W?