Johm Kerry: Evil sez Drudge

The BBQ Pit
161

No, actually, there aren’t any new facts in evidence. There was no “duping” except by the gang of thugs who are perepetrating this smear against John kerry.

The FACT is, that no one involved in this campaign was an eyewitness to the incident in question. Not one of these assholes was there. Not one of them is any any position to to provide “new evidence.” How could they? They weren’t there.

On the other hand, everybody who WAS there supports John Kerry and the official version of events. Are they all liars? Yes or no. If your answer is yes, please explain how you know, and how all the anti-Kerry thugs who WERE NOT THERE would know.

Just to make it perfectly clear: Every single eyewitness to the event, without exception, supports the official version of the event.

Actually, this all seems to be a matter of the most chickenshit kind of nitpickery. Kerry pursued a VC who was holding an armed B-40 and shot his ass. There seems to be some dispute (from people who weren’t there) about whether Kerry shot him in the back. Never mind that it’s fucking irrelevant. Never mind that you can’t ask combatants in the middle of a fire fight to be cognizant of what part of the anatomy they shoot the enemy, the fact is that this was an enemy combatant who was armed with a rocket launcher and was scrambling for a position to fire it at John Kerry’s boat and his crew. He was defending himself and his crew and that’s the end of it. The VC that Kerry killed was not the only one on the shore, btw. They had already taken fire from at least one other B-40 and according to other crew members (not just Kerry) they were taking fire from both sides of the river. Kerry went after the enemy with the most dangerous weapon and went into fire to do it. That is the testimony of every single fucking person who was there. Now please explain what possible “new evidence” could have surfaced that all the eyewitnesses missed. (or are they all just lying?)

Not true. Elliot has made no such statement. He was evidently pressured into saying he still supported the affadavit but he did not explicitly say that he believes Kerry did not deserve his Silver Star, nor is he in any position to. I ask again, what possible evidence could these non-eyewitnesses have provided which would be sufficient to prove that all of Kerry’s crewmates are liars?

Actually, it isn’t “clearly” untrue. It is in fact, rather supportable. The cites are in this thread.

Oh, the fucking irony. :rolleyes:

162

Oh. Are we to disregard Commander Elliott’s quote, pulled directly from ElvisL1ves’ cite?

As far as I can tell, the latest information available is that Commander Elliott regrets his accusation about the nature of Lt. Kerry’s kill. He does not apologize for his assertion (and he’s been saying it since May) that Lt. Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star. If you can provide a cite to dispute this, it might clear the whole thing up.

Respectfully, what BUT new evidence would make a decorated Naval officer, an outspoken 30-year supporter, shift his opinion of Mr Kerry so radically? Coming out against Mr Kerry, saying, “had I known then what I know now…” is pretty strange behavior for a Naval CO. As a swabbie, you should know exactly what I mean by that.

Actually, it is. Even our vaunted NPR * thinks Mr Kerry has stepped on his dick.

  • Please click on the story “Anti-Kerry TV Ad Question War Hero’s Vietnam Record.”
163

Really? Do you have a cite for that? Because my understanding is that the Kerry action occured as part of a multi-boat operation, and that there WERE eyewitnesses who dispute his account. But I don’t have a cite for that. But since you’re so sure that there were no other eyewitnesses, I assume you do?

Perhaps you don’t understand how Swiftboats operated, and why these guys can claim to have intimate knowledge of Kerry’s actions (perhaps even more so than the enlisted men who served on his boat). Swift Boats operated in packs, usually. They would go out on the rivers for a few hours, then go back into base. These guys may not have been on the boat with him, but they often just a few yards away in another boat, in a joint operation. And unlike the enlisted men on the boat, they would also be present at the officer’s briefings for the missions, the after-action debriefings, etc. They slept in the same tents with Kerry, ate with him, relaxed with him, trained with him, planned missions with him, and were comrades in every sense of the word.

A good analogy would be a tank platoon. Would you say that a fellow tank commander in a four-tank platoon with another commander would have no way of evaluating him? That he ‘wasn’t there’ with him, just because he was in another tank? No way. Those guys all know each other intimately, and they count on each other in combat.

Again, I’m not saying these guys are right. But let’s not distort who they are or dismiss them without a hearing. If Kerry has earned the right to run on his Vietnam record because he is a decorated hero, then other decorated heros from the same unit have a right to have their grievances aired and considered fairly.

And after hearing so much from many of you Democrats about how Kerry’s heroic behaviour in Vietnam is a great measure of his character and a very important item on his resume, why is it that you are instantly willing to smear others who have identical records as liars and scum, without even hearing what they have to say?

164

"…Respectfully, what BUT new evidence would make a decorated Naval officer, an outspoken 30-year supporter, shift his opinion of Mr Kerry so radically? Coming out against Mr Kerry, saying, “had I known then what I know now…” is pretty strange behavior for a Naval CO…

Aw,c’mon, Sid, who’s zooming who, here? We are to speculate about the nature of evidence not offered, and then assume, because of the sterling character of Mr. Elliott, about whom we know squat…

Well, it must be come serious shit because Mr. Elliott was in the Navy…

Please.

165

Well the Boston Globe stands by its story and since Elliot is not in any postion to know what the facts are (and admits as much), his new affadavit is fucking worthless. Both the documneted record and the eyewitness accounts still back up Kerry.

Do you really ahve to ask? Here’s a hint:

$$$$
I ask again, what conceivable “new evidence” could possibly have emerged from a band of mercenary, non-eyewitnesses which would contradict the testimony of every single person who was there?

I ask again, are all of Kerry’s crewmates lying? Yes or no? Go on, show some fucking balls, don’t run away from that question.

Actually, it is. Even our vaunted NPR * thinks Mr Kerry has stepped on his dick.
[/QUOTE]

Don’t get your hopes up. Perry is a big time political donor in Texas politics. That makes him at least friendly to Bush (and it strains credulity to suppose that the men don’t know each other at all).

It would be an easy matter for Bush to distance himself from this ad by condemning it. Why hasn’t he done so?

166

Given that he’s directly and demonstrably contradicted himself and now claims he hasn’t (I count 3 reversals so far), yes, we are to disregard *everything * he says on the matter. If we are to believe today’s version because he was a Navy man, why are we not to believe all the Navy men who were *there * and are attesting to the actions of another Navy man?

Sam, what part of “the guys who were *there * back him up” do you not wish to accept? Why do you think you have any basis for calling them all liars? Nice lecture about USN swift boat tactics of 1968, too - where do you get off with that claim of special expertise?

Neither of you could explain the concept of honor if your life depended on it.

167

Piss off, Elvis. Where do you come off taking a swipe at MY honor? Go to hell.

168

With all due respect, Sam, we have heard what they have to say. Again and again. What do you need, a Fox News 24-hour telethon? If they had some crushing evidence to offer, wouldn’t we know by now?

What, do you think: if we read it all again, we’ll come to a different conclusion? If only they can say the same thing on TV on more time, it’ll all be different?

169

Sam, you choose to believe people who weren’t there, have changed their positions, and have demonstrably lied over those who were there and have always said the same thing. You’ve taken the dishonorable position for no apparent reason than political preference. Face it and deal with it. The rest of us can already tell.

170

I think you’re confusing two incidents. There were multiple boats involved in the Bronze Star incident (and only one guy disputes the official account of that incident, a guy who was on a different boat a hundred yards away), Kerry’s Siver Star was awarded for incident which involved only his own boat as he was en route to help another swiftboat which had been ambushed. Every witness to the Silver star incident supports John Kerry. No one quoted in this book was on site for that incident.

Don’t patronize me, Canadian, I was in the US Navy, I’m sure I know more about it than you do, and I don’t give a shit what those guys thought of Kerry’s character, the point is that they are in no position to question the legitimacy of his medals.

If they want to whine about Winter Soldier, let them whine, but carping about his medals is not a legitimate grievance.

Here’s a double twist of irony for you- all these guys attacking John Kerry are also effectively accusing his crewmates of being lying scum, are they not?

Are Kerry’s crewmates lying? Why?

171

Two words. Jane Fonda. 'Nuff sed.

172

If we’re talking Jane Fonda as she looked c. 1972- yeah…that would do it.

173

Can we hold on a minute here. The Silver Star is a big deal. In terms of awards for gallantry in combat it is one notch below the Metal of Honor. It is not given out for perfect Sunday School attendance. It is not given out based on the say-so of the guy who wants one. It requires corroborated supporting statements and approval right up the chain of command. It is not done in a vacuum. The people associated with the commanders who approve it, that is, the staff in the personnel office, know damn well when one is being put together and anybody can put their two cents in and the paperwork can be blocked or changed to some other award, like the Green Weenie, the Army/Navy/Air Force commendation Metal, at any point along the chain.

Clearly there are people who got it that some might debate about. I am aware of one company commander who was awarded the SS after calling in artillery fire on his own position in the mistaken and panicky belief that he was being over run. Rather than admit the guy screwed up and killed a bunch of his own people for no good reason or purpose the powers that be decided to regard the whole thing as a brave act – as it would have been if the officer had been right about the situation. I know other people, my old first sergeant for one, who were awarded the SS but declined to accept it because he didn’t think he had done anything but his duty under the circumstances.

I have trouble thinking that Senator Kerry’s SS was not throughly staffed and documented and I have real trouble thinking that the Swift Boat Cabal has come up with something sufficiently damning to question the initial award some 35 years after the fact. If so, I’d sure like to see it. I’d especially like to see if there is anything to it beside the obvious falsehoods and grumping about Kerry’s anti-war activities after he left active duty.

As I understood the NPR report on this thing on Friday the reporter said that she had the distinct impression that Kerry welcomed a fight, that the question had been raised before and throughly examined by the Boston Globe* and fought out in one of Kerry’s senate campaigns.

It would be helpful if someone interested in debunking the award would break out the citation, publish it and give us chapter and verse on where and how the citation is wrong on the facts.

The Purple Heart is another problem. If you were hurt in combat badly enough to get medical attention the PH was pretty much an automatic. There is an old Mauldin cartoon of Willie or Joe standing in front of a Corpsman saying “No thanks, I already have a Purple Heart. How about a couple Aspin?” A friend of mine reputedly cold-cocked himself climbing under his desk during a mortar raid on DaNang. He is supposed to have woken up in an aid station with a splitting head ache. He went back to his hooch and the next day was presented with a PH. You didn’t have to be hurt very badly to qualify. Incidentally and infantry type could get 15 PHs and he would not get to go home early – apparently the Navy did not have as much problem keeping its unit strength up as the Army. That three-wounds-and-your-out was the Navy rule is hardly Kerry’s doing. I can only think that (1) the Navy had lots of guys who wanted their I-was-in-the-war ticket punched, and (2) 90 or 120 days in country should have been enough for anybody to become sick of that God forsaken war…

174

Actually, Jane Fonda probably is the motivator for the SBVT chumps. Her and the Winter Soldier-related testimony that Kerry gave in Washington following his return stateside.

175

Kerry’s Silver Star citation:

From reading that, it seems to me that PCF23 was right there in action with him, and the sailors on that boat are in a position to corroborate or refute at least portions of this account.

<after doing some Googling> Here’s a Drudgereport excerpt I missed before:

Sounds to me like there were a LOT of eyewitnesses. Two or three boats loaded with soldiers.

Once again, I have to say that I am not agreeing with these guys. I think Kerry deserves the benefit of the doubt unless they can produce hard evidence, and so far I haven’t seen it. But I’m pushed into defending their right to speak mainly because of the excessively over-the-top attacks on them coming from some of you. It’s important in this matter that we all keep the facts straight on both sides. So when I keep hearing that “None of the people disputing this were there”, and I can’t get a cite for that assertion, I have to wonder if this is just a reflexive, say-anything-at-all defense of Kerry.

176

You grace me with your generous and informed criticism. Perhaps I am too inconspicuous with my honor, but I have always avoided wearing it on my sleeve. I can see why Mr Kerry resonates with you.

177

Sam, the goddamn citation says that Kerry was 800 yards up the river from the other boats.

I have also yet to see a cite for any eyewitness account which contradicts either the citation or the testimony of Kerry’s crewmates.

It should also be pointed out that John O’Neil, the person quoted in your Sludge quotation, did not serve anywhere near John Kerry and has no first hand knowledge of Kerry’s service whatsoever.

178

Well, okay. And one day, the Columbus Dispatch will pen a little something biased about yours truly. I would hope you’ll be sporting a big, fat :dubious:, just like I am over the Globe’s “journalism.” They reported something that Commander Elliott alleges was a misquote. Pretty slick, because instead of offering a retraction, The Boston Globe gets to fill even more news hole, just to stand behind their original story. A firm stance, but feet of clay.

If a reporter publishes a newspaper piece and the subject immediately calls him on a misquotation, it’s the responsibility of the paper to provide proof that backs what’s been written. It boils down to two choices for The Boston Globe: cough up an uncut recording or post a retraction. Failing that evidence, it is an invalid news source for this message board.

This here is what I like to call a “petard moment.” Are you trying to tell me that one must actually witness an event in order to get the full story? I thought it was the CO’s job to get the full scoop!

Well, then, this is getting nowhere. I’ll just go along with what’s been said. Commander Elliott knows nothing reliable.

Meanwhile, with no proof in hand, you blindly submit casha casha as his motivation. I have been able to discover nothing unseemly in Commander Elliott’s history, and there’s no evidence he’s on payola. To me, he appears to be a formerly staunch supporter who has had a dramatic change of heart.

In fact, in 1996, Commander Elliott was instrumental in Senator Kerry’s reelection. As detractors sought then, as now, to tarnish Mr Kerry’s record, the campaign somehow managed to arrange for Kerry’s old Commanding Officer to join him, to fight side by side, just like that day in 'nam. Which makes the following all that much more awkward:

So which is it? If he truly knew nothing, as you’ve said, Commander Elliott must have been lying in 1996, when he piled on in support of Candidate Kerry’s side of the story. But the CO really knew nothing reliable, right?

What you appear to be saying is that in 1996, Senator Kerry knowingly used a lie in order to secure his reelection. Mr Kerry fraudulently used his former CO to bolster his military record and charge up the crowd over his heroism in winning the Silver Star. Oddly, I haven’t been able to find any evidence that Commander Elliott was compensated for his appearances in Campaign '96. Using your logic, though, he did it just for the $$$$ then, too. That’s pretty interesting.

Fine, but I really can’t get too interested in scuttlebutt, especially 30 years after the incident. Chits and reports are my red meat here. But since you’ve been so pleasant about asking, at least one of his crewmates is lying.

quid pro quo: how many of his 23 peers are lying?

179

Did you even bother to READ it??? Allow me to quote:

PCF 94 was Kerry’s boat. PCF 23 was ANOTHER BOAT. They BOTH went to the location where Kerry went ashore.

Well, you know what would really clear this up? If we could read the after-action report, which Kerry wrote, and see if it conflicts with testimony from the people on his boat that there was only one VC, that he had been wounded by the M-60 gunner, and that he was running away when Kerry shot him. But we can’t, because from what I understand that report is one of the documents the Kerry campaign has refused to release. How come? You guys made all sorts of hay over Bush being unwilling to release his documents. Why are you not demanding that Kerry release his? He’s refused release of the after-action report, and the medical reports surrounding his Purple Hearts. Can you think of a reason why he’d do that? Why doesn’t he exercise his standard Form 180, authorizing the release of all documents? Bush has done this. Kerry hasn’t. He could blow these Swiftvets out of the water by releasing these documents if they corroborate what he says.

180

*Elliot doesn’t dispute any quote, just says he’s been “misquoted.” Suspicious, to say the least.
*From the affidavit:

You heard it here first: tomorrow’s Elliot affidavit today:

Despicable.