Kerry has not claimed to be some kind of Rambo figure. He was a member of the armed forces on active duty in Vietnam. He saw some action and won some medals. He had an above-average tour of duty.
The Democrats have certainly emphasized, but they’ve never claimed that he was a one-man killing machine. If you’ve got an example of something they’ve claimed that varies dramatically from the truth, I’d like to hear it. In other words, cite?
In what way is Kerry’s statement that he is / was a “defender of America” a “giant lie”? What do you think this statement means? In what way has he failed to live up to it?
That isn’t a cite, it’s a simple repetition of the allegation you just *asserted * to be fact. A cite would have some factual basis behind it. As it is, what the “partisan op-ed” and your statement of “fact” have behind it is exactly nothing.
Then, considering all the other things you’ve asserted to be fact, on the basis of this group’s say-so only, which have already been *proven * false, you do see the need to be cautious about this one, too, don’t you?
The potatoes have been big enough for you, prior to the systematic exposure of them before your eyes, that you’ve done the most “mentioning” of anyone here of them. When do we get to read that you were just joking all along?
It might, if anything substantive he had said had been proven wrong. The “picture” you see is a product of your own mind. You have no way to convince anyone else it’s real unless they already share your predilections.
Its effectiveness as a voter-persuader, after the exposure of this group as paid serial liars, has already gone away and is ricocheting.
Oh, really? Where have they been all these years, then?
All of which proves what, exactly? That there’s a mass market for smear campaigns? That’s hardly news.
[qutoe]And their spokesman, John O’Neill, is really good. He’s calm, unflappable, and comes across as very credible.
[/quote]
Nope. Having the facts is what makes one credible. There are a number of smooth interviewees around who are still total loons. Or is it that you consider him credible because you badly *want * what he says to be true, for reasons that can’t withstand examination?
Cite?
Still waiting for your “clarification” about how you concluded that Kerry’s own shipmates are liars. You may continue to hope that goes away, but it won’t.
As I stated in my message, I used it because he gives direct quotes of what Kerry said, and gives the exact time and place for the quote. Jack Kelly is a respected journalist. I believe the quotes are correct. YMMV, which is why I put in the disclaimer.
On their ‘say-so’? Why do you act like there are no facts behind their claims? There are plenty, including Kerry’s own journals which contradict his medal citations. And by the way, since when are sworn depositions from eyewitnesses not considered valid evidence? O’Neill has a mitt full of them. Including three eyewitnesses to the Bronze Star incident where Rassmann was pulled from the water, stating that the events never happened the way Kerry said they did.
Again, if someone came forward with this kind of evidence against Bush, you guys would all be going bananas right now. If Bush’s entire chain of command from the Guard signed affidavits attesting to bad conduct and stated that he wasn’t fit for office, that would be an open-and-shut case as far as you’re concerned.
Huh? It’s an interesting topic. Worthy of discussion. That’s very different than saying an issue will have big resonance with voters.
Let’s wait and see how many people are convinced that it’s real.
Watching a single ad puts doubts about their voting decision in a whopping 27 people of independents who had already decided to vote for Kerry or who were thinking about voting for Kerry. That is a HUGE impact. Greater than any ad I’ve ever seen.
Gee, I dunno… Living their lives, maybe? Most of them had put the Kerry stuff behind them as bad memories from a long-ago war. But when he ran for President, they decided they had to speak up. None of them are making a nickel off of this (as opposed to the vets who are for Kerry, who are on the payroll and put up in five-star hotels). John O’Neill is donating the proceeds from his book to military charities.
There is a BIG difference between a smear campaign from MoveOn and one from these guys. MoveOn is a political organization trying to enact political change. The SwiftVets don’t care who is elected, so long as it isn’t Kerry. O’Neill has said that he would have voted for John Edwards had he been elected. Many are Bush supporters, but there are plenty of Democrats in their group as well. They aren’t ‘smearing’ Kerry. They are levelling charges at him that they feel strongly about, and they are personally involved in the events in question. They are veterans who feel that they must tell their story, because they believe it would be a disaster for Kerry to be elected. They are entitled to that opinion, and to bring it forward to the people. And of course, Kerry is free to refute what they have said, although to date he has remained silent and the surrogates he’s sent out against them have engaged in little more than character assassination rather than debunking the actual charges.
No, I find him credible because he has not levelled a single charge that he can not back up with a ream of documentation. As I said, when Kerry’s legal team tried to threaten TV stations it didn’t work because O’Neill sent them 100 pages of supporting documentation. I haven’t got his book yet, but those who have are quite impressed with it. It’s heavily footnoted and annexed. A lot of the charges are backed up by Kerry’s own statements. For instance, his account of what happened when he won the Silver Star does not match his own citation, which speaks of ‘turning his boat into a numerically superior force’, and withstanding withering enemy fire. In fact, a single rocket was shot at them, and they saw a single VC in a loincloth jump up and start to run. Tommy Belodeau, Kerry’s Gunner, shot the guy in the legs. Kerry jumped ashore with two other men, and finished him off. That’s what happened, and even Kerry has said that’s what happened. There was no withering enemy fire, and no numerically superior force. That would make the Silver Star somewhat suspect, don’t you think?
I never said they were liars. I’ve said that A) Most of them didn’t serve with Kerry very long, B) They are lacking in perspective that other officers might have, because they aren’t the ones who know exactly what the orders are, and C) In the fog of war people see things differently.
Nonetheless, their accounts don’t match the facts in some cases, and the Swiftees’ do. For example, James Rassmann, the guy who was pulled out of the water by Kerry, says that he was knocked overboard by a mine blast. He says when he came up, all the other boats had left, except for Kerry, who had turned around when he realized a man was overboard and came back for him under intense fire and pulled him to safety.
In fact, the 3 boat was blown completely out of the water by the mine blast, and was totally immobilized. It couldn’t go anywhere. And three men from it were floating in the water along with Rassmann. The other boats went to the 3 boat and commenced rescue operations. They all stopped right where the mine went off, and were there long enough to pull three men out of the water, to jump aboard the disabled boat which motored out of control into the river bank, injuring Larry Thurlow. By Kerry’s own account, they then hooked up the 3 boat to Kerry’s boat, and towed it back to base.
During all of this, where was the withering enemy fire? These guys engaged in a long, stationary rescue operation. Not a single boat had so much as a bullet hole in it, and no one was wounded other than the people injured by the first mine.
Kerry claims to have been wounded by shrapnel in the buttocks, and that he ‘smashed his arm’ in a mine explosion. Rassmann has said that Kerry’s arm was bleeding. But the medical report shows nothing more than a minor bruise. And as for the buttock wound, Kerry’s own journal shows that an hour or so earlier on the same mission he threw a grenade into a pile of rice and didn’t get far enough away from it, and the explosion lodged a couple of grains of rice into his butt. Amazing that the ‘shrapnel’ he took just happened to be in the same spot as an injury he suffered an hour or so earlier.
Anyway, I keep trying to get out of this discussion until I can read the book, so why don’t we just wait until then and see what documentation O’Neill offers?
Well, I only have the pleasure of reading Jack Kelly in the editorials section of the paper, but his writing there is consistently partisan drivel. His arguments are nearly always specious and his support is generally half-truth at best. He’s a hack, and I have a hard time believing that he is “respected” by anyone other than the pre-fooled.
Why do you act like there are facts behind their claims and then NEARLY ALWAYS FAIL TO CITE THEM? Let us examine them, if they are so compelling. Let’s see the contradictions from Kerry’s own journals. That reminds me, have you found a source for your prior quote from Kerry yet?
If they had seen him, maybe they would be saying this.
I love how this story continues to be both “worthy of discussion” and something that we should continue to “wait and see” what comes out.
Okay.
:rolleyes:
He’s also claimed to have voted for a bunch of Democrats too, even though he’s given $15,000 to republicans. Too bad we can’t review his voting history. Too bad you are unable to see such raging contradictions when they go against your desired conclusions. For now, I’ll put O’Neill in the complete lying sack of shit category. Feel free to prove otherwise.
:rolleyes:
And he had a big “David Kay” smile on his face when he talked about it.
So now having not served with him does call one’s opinion into question?
Yeah, you and Michael Corleone. I suggest that this is the one point we agree on: Let’s wait until there is evidence someone can cite before we call Kerry a liar and belittle his military service.
Speaking of speaking out…submitted for your perusal. A Vet for Kerry website, it posts this rather striking quotation. Its hard to imagine in 7 pages this hasn’t been referred to, but I’m too lazy to plow through and be sure. Easier to say “If you’ve already seen this, sorry, but…”
[U.S. Navy, Officer Fitness Report signed by LTCMDR George Elliott; 18, Dec 1969]
Has the unflappable and credible Mr. Elliott answered any questions about this?
I’m glad that you drew attention to that quote, elucidator, although I have to point out that it was linked to already, as it is featured on the John Kerry website debunking these numbnuts. These type of “facts” and “evidence” roll right off the backs of supporters of the Shifties (or at least those dispassionate supporters of their right to be heard) like water off the bow of a Swiftboat. So he wrote that, so what? So the action report details heavy automatic weapons and small arms fire from both banks, and secondary explosions when the area was bombed shortly after the boats departed. In reality it was a sunny day and the birds were chirping in the trees while the Swift boats drifted lazily along. The men were drinking mint julips and talking about their sweethearts back home.
However, in rereading the quote, I predict the next attack by the Shifties on Kerry (right after the “he and David Alston hardly saw each other” attack falls flat on its ass, right on top of the other charges) will be that he was a Viet Cong mole. See, it says right there that he learned the Vietnamese language. What more evidence do you need? Commie pinko VC rat bastard.
One cannot avoid the impression this meets with your approval. At least, you are at no pains to deplore this development. But shouldn’t you?
You spare no effort to establish your impartiality, and non-partisan committment to truth. You’ve not entirely made up your mind, you assure us, still awaiting evidence. You insist that, at the very least, we must consider the question as open, undecided.
By that self-same reasoning, mustn’t you consider the charges against Kerry equally unproven? In your mind, is it proper than such unproven charges should have such a dramatic impact on the electorate?
Wherein you deplore the high standards of evidence my ilk demands to cease besmirching the pristine reputation of GeeDubya (Praise the Leader!), and exploiting the political benefits thereof in a cynical and pernicious fashion.
Mighty high standard you offer us, Sam. Care to adopt them?
Respected by whom? Why do you choose to believe him? Why should we choose to believe you?
You’ve already been provided with the comprehensive eRiposte link. Have you read it yet?
You’re defining “eyewitness” pretty broadly, for one thing, and choosing to ignore the statements by, well, Rassman himself.
Bullshit, and insulting bullshit at that. Bush’s “entire chain of command” *has * said they didn’t even *see * him on duty during the period in question. But that doesn’t make an impression on you, does it?
Please. You told us “Unfortunately for Kerry, this, coupled with his ‘Christmas in Cambodia’ claim is helping to paint the picture of a prevaricator - someone who shades the truth when it suits his purpose.” That’s saying the issue *will * have resonance.
Wait for what? When? What secret information is not yet out after 35 years? Time to face it, Bucko.
Leaving aside the issue of what ads you have seen, and how you know what their impact is, that story is from the NY Post. You do recognize the name “Rupert Murdoch”, don’t you?
Not when he ran for Congress, when the war was still on, or Lt. Gov., or any of his Senate campaigns? Right.
Cite? One with facts, that is?
You really see a difference there?
[quoteThey aren’t ‘smearing’ Kerry.[/quote]
Oh, they’re just simply mistaken about almost everything they purport to be a fact, and any political effect is simply coincidental. Good God, you believe what you’re saying, don’t you?
And doing so obligates them to have their charges scrutinized, does it not? How well have they held up?
You haven’t read a single thing you’ve been told. That’s the only conclusion one can draw from that statement.
Still waiting for it.
I demanded a cite, not a repetition. Got one?
So are Ann Coulter’s books. So?
Possibly, if one takes the audacious step of taking what you say at face value. It also makes every other decoration in the war suspect, along with Thurlow’s Bronze Star for the same incident in which he says Kerry’s equivalent actions would not qualify.
More bullshit. They were there, as long as the “other officers” were, especially the ones who got there after Kerry already left Vietnam and still claim the right to assess his character on that basis.
You have no independent means to know what the facts are except from the accounts themselves.
You have shown no signs of trying to get out of this discussion, which would have been over long ago without you. Meanwhile, you might consider that any documentation would certainly have been available from sources other than O’Neill himself - that’s all that’s left for your partisan hopes rest on. If/when that hope is dashed, would you be willing to admit to us that you got fooled?
On second thought, what Hentor and elucidator have said.
It’s amazing how much a little cognitive dissonance can drive a thread, eh Sam?
Here’s the latest wrinkle, folks: Turns out that the publisher of O’Neil and Corsi’s book has started A WHITES ONLY DATING SERVICE. Here’s the link for the article:
Of course the fact that the publisher of the book is a naked white supremacist (there’s an attractive image) says nothing about the credibility of the book. I mean if I was to do a book with Jason Blair and have it published by Lyndon LaRouche that should in no way affect anyone’s opinion as to the book’s value.
By the by, can anyone explain to me why we’re quibbling about Kerry, who volunteered for the most dangerous duty going, when Bush used his Daddy’s influence to stay statewide, then went AWOL and has repeatedly lied about it?
I’m curious why Sam Stone is trying to prop up the (dis)credibility of the Swift Bullshitters for Bsush again, especially after he got thumped with numerous cites against them at the end of this thread.
I’ve kept out of this because I think the Swiftboat Assholes for Lies and their “supporters” are beneath contempt and since this isn’t the Pit, I can’t say what I really want to say, but I was struck by this.
That is so true. I dare Sam Stone to read that link. I’m sure this has been said before, but the right-wingers/conservatives who are doing this, and the ones defending them, remind me of the stories of those despicable people who spit on Vietnam vets when they returned home. Today, the vets are being spit on all over again and it’s just as despicable now as it was then. These people are incapable of feeling shame.
First off, a correction to my last post: as anyone who can read a map can see, the Mekong flows south and east from Sa Dec, not south and west. My apologies.
Secondly, I’d like to point out another rather disingenuous claim found in the third chapter of Unfit to Command, linked above, which just sort of leapt out at me. We read there that:
Couple of points:
To begin with, had Kerry been ordered to drop off a group of Navy Seals or a CIA agent in Cambodia, then in all probability only one of the men mentioned above would have had first-hand knowledge about the mission, namely George Elliot, Kerry’s immediate supervisor. This fact is due to the way in which the navy chain of command functions, I have been given to believe, and perhaps someone with a bit more knowledge in this regard (like Mr. Moto) can step in to correct me if I’m wrong. Essentially, however, what would happen is that someone higher up the command chain would turn to Elliot and say, “We need you to accomplish mission X,” say, transport a CIA agent into Cambodian territory. It would then be up to Elliot’s discretion to decide which of the boats under his command should be used to accomplish “mission X.” In all probability, then, he would be the only officer to know if Kerry, specifically, had been sent on mission X.
If such is the case, this would imply that the testimony of the other commanders, above, is really meaningless. They are simply saying 1) I never heard of Kerry being ordered to go to Cambodia, and 2) if Kerry had gone into Cambodia without orders, he’d have been punished. However, with regard to 1), there is no reason for them to have ever have known about Kerry’s specific missions in the first place, and with regard to 2), it is simply a statement of abstract fact unconnected to Kerry’s activities in Vietnam (since, if Kerry did sneak into Cambodia, he would almost certainly have done so under orders).
Note, however, that by phrasing the passage as they have O’Neill and Corsi create the illusion that Kerry’s word stands against that of several officers, rather than against Elliot’s alone – an illusion which is disingenuous at best, if not purposely misleading, assuming of course that the assertion above is correct.
(I mention this point because I’ve seen the same claims used elsewhere on the net to argue against Kerry ever having been in Cambodia, by the way.)
In addition, it’s important to note that the crewmembers cited above only deny that Kerry was in Cambodia during Christmas of 1968, which is not a point of contention. Since Gardner was no longer serving with Kerry in late January/early February, his denial cannot cover the period during which Kerry now claims he was in Cambodia. For what it’s worth.
elucidatory:
Yeah, it’s the “shotgun effect.” If you look at the list of accusations against Kerry, or read this Chapter of Unfit, you get the impression that Kerry did nothing in Vietnam except flounder around incompetently, disobeying orders, getting lost, putting his crew in jeopardy, lying his ass off, and so forth. And for these actions, we are told, Kerry was falsely awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and 3 Purple Hearts! I know from my own period of service that the Army is pretty FUBAR, and I assume the Navy is as well. But this is exceptionally FUBAR even for the military.
This approach also taints Unfit with the appearance of a highly dishonorable smear campaign, as opposed to an objective, if critical, appraisal of Kerry’s military service. It appears to be a studied attempt to ignore the forest because of all of the trees. Insignificant details are granted exaggerated importance to create the overall sense that Kerry is a lying, dishonorable coward. At the same time, the simple fact that Kerry volunteered for two tours of duty in Vietnam, and that, by O’Neill’s own admission on Hardball, Kerry displayed courage on the battlefield, is ignored or glossed over. Think about it: even if we accept the worst-case scenario regarding Kerry – that he was an incompetent officer, that he lied or “gamed the system” in order to get his medals, and so forth – his military record is still far superior to Bush’s own.
And speaking of the “shotgun effect….” Sam:
Yet another accusation. The idea here, it would seem, is to simply spit out as many demeaning accusations about Kerry’s service record as possible. This technique is effective because 1) one small misstatement by Kerry can be blown out of proportion as a means of smearing him, 2) it’s difficult to sort out which soldiers can actually vouch for which accusations, and 3) who the hell wants to go through all this tedious mess, debunking every tiny claim?
Let’s list just a few of them thus far:[ul]
[li]Kerry lied about his first Purple Heart, and did not deserve it;[/li][li] Kerry lied about his second Purple Heart, and did not deserve it;[/li][li]Kerry lied about his Bronze Star, and didn’t deserve it;[/li][li]Kerry lied about his Silver Star, and didn’t deserve it;[/li][li]Kerry was, in reality, a lousy officer;[/li][li]Kerry’s “Band of Brothers” are either lying, or at the very least, completely mistaken;[/li][li]Kerry was never in Cambodia;[/li][li]Kerry’s first Purple Heart was the result of fragment from his own M-79;[/li][li]Kerry’s second Purple Heart was also the result a fragment from his own M-79;[/li][li]Kerry lied about having dinner with the skipper of an LST, and invented the conversation he recorded in his journal with that skipper;[/li][li]Kerry was reassigned from An Thoi because nobody could stand his “belly-aching;”[/li][li]Rather than spending Christmas in Cambodia, Kerry got lost on the river between Dong Tam and a Bob Hope USO show, and “blundered” into an ambush;[/li][li]Kerry has, by virtue of his 1971 testimony before Congress, besmirched the honor of every single soldier who ever fought in Vietnam;[/li][li]Kerry’s testimony before the Congress was a lie;[/li][li]and the veterans who testified before Congress during the Vietnam War Crimes Hearings were all lying, and were somehow dragged in their by Kerry himself.[/ul][/li]
And this is but the tip of the iceberg.
Anyway, I was following a thread about Alston over at the Swift Vets Message Board. By the end of it the various participants had come to the conclusion that Alston and Kerry had never served together, although they were still struggling to explain a photograph of Kerry’s crew in which Alston features quite prominently. For some inexplicable reason a moderator suddenly ruled the discussion “off limits,” and the thread was locked. The entire discussion appears to have been deleted afterwards; at least, when I went back shortly afterwards I couldn’t find it.
However it does appear to be the case, at least according to those guys, that Alston and Peck were wounded on PC 94 prior to Kerry’s arrival. In fact, Kerry took command of Peck’s boat after Peck was wounded, and Alston was replaced by Short, apparently.
Again, I guess it’s possible that Alston is exaggerating, or even lying, about his relationship with Kerry. But to my mind this exposes yet another weakness of the claims put forward by the Swiftee’s, namely that they must also debunk the testimony of many other servicemen who support Kerry. They would have us believe, for example, that Alston – who works as a minister in his hometown in South Carolina – is also lying about Kerry’s service, as are the other soldier’s in his (admittedly smarmy) “band of brothers.”
This is really the gist of what you’re trying to say, Sam, as well as the Swifties. Consider this example, taken directly from their webpage:
I honestly don’t understand (once again) how you can accuse your debating opponents of promoting a “conspiracy theory” just because they point out the very obvious ties between the Swift Boat vets and certain prominent Republicans, on the one hand, while simultaneously buying into the rather obvious conspiracy theory required to explain the action of these 13 men.
More shortly.
First off, a correction to my last post: as anyone who can read a map can see, the Mekong flows south and east from Sa Dec, not south and west. My apologies.
Actually Mr S your instinct was sound. The Mekong flows both east and west, both into the South China Sea and feeding the Cambodian Great Lake.
As I said, I’m going to bow out of this until I can read the book. I’ve tried to present both sides here. I provide evidence that I say supports Kerry, and I get accused of ‘tricks’. I provide evidence against him, and I’m a big, bad partisan. Whatever.
Mr S: It may interest you to know that a few days ago I was on the blog that was trying to ‘break’ the Alston story, and I accused them of cherry-picking data and trying to wave away crucial evidence that didn’t support their case. They started off into a goofball discussion of how the shadows in the Alston/Kerry photo were ‘all wrong’. I told them they were veering into tinfoil hat territory, and that the evidence of the photo could not be simply explained away, and if they couldn’t explain it in a rational way with documentation, their theory was dead.
Despite the fact that you guys think I’m an uncritical partisan who won’t look at the evidence, when I debate people on the other side of the issue I’m the skeptic. You may not believe it, but I’m really just trying to figure out what’s going on here. Because on the one hand, I find it hard to believe that the guys on Kerry’s boat would lie for him, but on the other I find it hard to believe that the other 17 officers in Kerry’s division would also be liars.
But I don’t think the guys on Kerry’s boat are lying. Every time I’ve heard them speak they’ve told the truth. For instance, two members of Kerry’s boat have recently come out and said that they don’t believe they were in Cambodia. Certainly not deep into Cambodia. One man said maybe it was possible that they inadvertently strayed in, but he wasn’t sure. The other said he doesn’t think it happened. So they’re not blindly supporting everything Kerry says, but they still support him personally. Maybe it’s as simple as Kerry being a Lieutenent who was good to his own crew, but lousy to his fellow officers and superiors. It’s been known to happen. I don’t know.
To remind everyone, Kerry’s claims about Cambodia include:
Claiming he spent Christmas Eve five miles across the border (now retracted).
Claiming he got a lucky hat from a CIA agent he ferried into Cambodia.
Claiming he has taken Special Forces and CIA guys into Cambodia repeatedly.
Claiming he has gone on ‘gun running’ missions to Cambodia.
Funny that not a single crewmember will back any of those stories, even though they are travelling with him and working for his campaign. And now three of his crew have flat-out denied ever being on a mission to Cambodia.
Oh, and Mr. S, you missed another charge: That Kerry negotiated on his own with the North Vietnamese government while still an officer in the United States Military (Naval Reserve)