If there’s one thing good about this whole Swift Bullshitters for Bush incident, it’s getting the opportunity to see Kerry actually kick ass (on a metaphorical level) and not be a passive Dukakis-type victim.
That, and the sheer comedy in watching folks like Sam Stone and Snakespirit contort themselves into ever-kinkier shapes as they defend their views of the Swifties against the growing mountain of evidence against the Swifties…
jayjay:
Yeah, man. Yeah. I get it now. Thank the fates that the Swifties, Razorsharp and you are around to make things clear!
Heh. . .
The only reason he had to go back for Rassman was that Rassman had fallen overboard. In your version, Rassman must be an incredibly forgiving person, doesn’t it? Not only supporting Kerry for President, but even making speeches about how he owes his life to him. Or is it that he’s *still * just “confused”?
Or maybe nobody *noticed * him fall overboard, or thought to do a headcount while they were hightailing it out of Dodge? He wasn’t necessary to run the boat, and those who were were a little busy. And, lest ye forget, the *only * skipper to go back was Kerry. So here’s what your story amounts to - he knew Rassman had fallen overboard, couldn’t have missed hearing that splash because there was nobody shooting, but still was so chicken in the face of (nonexistent) enemy fire that he wanted to get out of there anyway. Only later did he think that his electoral viability would be improved by a rescue story, and somehow all his crew members except Rambo Jr. have gone along with the lie from that day until the present. All the other skippers went right by Rassman too, without stopping - why not? there was no enemy fire, right?
Come on now, Sam. Your attempt to patch the remains of the Swiftees’ lies into a cogent anti-Kerry argument has long passed through contemptible and has become ridiculous. Oh, wait, you’re still keeping an open mind, waiting for the facts to come in. Gotcha.
Boy, thats gonna be a tough image to expunge from my brain. Lessee, gonna need about 1500 mikes of LSD, some finely powdered Drano, some injectible nitro-glycerine…
Don’t do it again, OK, Dave, and I won’t post those pictures of you and Janet Reno on the internet.
Ooops! Wasn’t Dave, was GL. Apologies all around…
This bothered me too. Could it possibly be that Bush’s crowd are trying to draw attention away from Bush’s lies about Iraq, and his responsibility in getting hundreds of troops, and thousands of innocent civilians, killed in an unnecessary war? Not being American, I find the amount of personal mud-slinging in your election campaigns hard to believe - is no-one interested in the policies of the candidates and the real issues of the present day - as opposed to 35 year old history?
Waitatick! You’re from Ireland and you find our politics too emotional, violent, and contentious?
Jeez, we’re in worse shape than I thought!
Ahem! Go to my post, the 4th down from the top on page 7 of this thread.
And all the brouhaha is particularly interesting considering that one of the most voluble of the ‘disinterested parties who hasn’t made up his mind yet and is only trying to clear up the facts straight’ is from a foreign country and, barring another Supreme Court decision, will not be involved in our election.
Too emotional, violent and contentious for what?
No sweat. I just happen to have all of those things as well as enough Dilantin to let you sleep through the next week or so.
Too late. For the pictures of me with Janet Reno, anyway. Pride of placement on my website. Right next to the photos of me draining the blood of conservative children just for the hell of it, and just above the photo of my new all-electrified and wired for sound Kerry/Edwards lawn sign.
Or did you mean the intimate pictures?
Why am I seeing the Griswolds’ Christmas display here?
Just when was it that the Chicago Tribune became a well known liberal rag? My experience has been that it is a solid newspaper with a Republican tilting, and thus Dailey hostile, editorial page. Maybe I just missed the conversion. Maybe I missed the sarcasm.
Oh, Bob, you had to lie down with dogs.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I should point out that, as I recall, Razorsharp is a very well spoken and reasonably logical white supremicist, whose political ideology seems to run alongside Stormfront.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=244236&page=9&pp=50
Well, let’s see. I search for his posts… he’s certainly a fundamentalist type, (See his diatribes on Judge Moore) and he’s not real fond of arabs (Another one for the Memory Hole). His key seems to be that the media is hiding things that would make people feel white people are being oppressed.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/search.php?searchid=378807
He’s certainly against diversity. Multiculturalism is making this country weak.
Oh, and there’s murder sprees in South Africa the media is hiding.
So, well. Thank you, Razorsharp, for contributing to this thread, I shall trust that all other members will give your opinions the weight they deserve. I felt I had to do this, because it was a long time ago we had the last invasion, and I think it unlikely your views have changed. New members should know where you’re coming from.
This has been a public service message by “Conservative but not Crazy”, a 527 organization.
“This is Lib the Giant Squid, and I approve of this message.”
Just anticipating possible flak from the crazies who make the categorical statement about “the media are liberal.” On most say “is” not “are.”
Well, here in sunny Belfast the politicians go at each others policies and political records hard and heavy, but they don’t attack each other’s personal lives the way they seem to in the USA. At election times we get deluged with fliers about what each party will do for us - and detailed descriptions of where the other parties’ policies fall down in comparison… but not details of their personal lives.
The main problem with elections here is that too many people are locked into a one party mindset, and still vote based on religion - not policies. I see Bush is trying to make this work for him too - calling in the right wing fundie vote - well it works for Ian Paisley - it’s taken him from being a Saturday preacher outside the City Hall when I was a teenager to being the leader of the largest political party in NI :dubious:
There are a couple more eyewitnesses that support Kerry’s version of events, in addition to Rood, these two from the 43 boat.
The other is a guy who wrote in to his local paper, so he has not been “vetted” as it were, by the media yet. However, he of course deserves the right to have his story heard!
http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/kerrybronzestar.htm#BRONZE_1
Of course, as is typical, the Swifties match records and eyewitnesses with people who weren’t even there, such as Bob Dole.
Actually, the Swiftees’ witnesses that day are Pees, who was on the boat that was blown up, Larry Thurlow, the skipper of the boat that rescued him, and several other people who were there.
But of course, back when you didn’t have any witnesses on your side, the story was, “No one who wasn’t on Kerry’s boat is a reliable witness”. Now that you have a couple of witnesses who also weren’t on the boat, suddenly they are unimpeachable and somehow trump the eyewitness accounts AND physical evidence that contradicts the notion that there was gunfire from the bank.
There is no doubt much confusion around this, and it’s hard to sort out a 35 year old situation when you have two groups of eyewitnesses contradicting each other. Nonetheless, we have already debunked several aspects of Kerry’s story.
First, Kerry’s medical report that got him a third purple heart lists “shrapnel wound in buttock, and minor contusion on arm”. Purple hearts aren’t awarded for minor bruises, so clearly he got that purple heart based on the 'shrapnel wound in buttock." HOWEVER, Kerry’s own journal contradicts the idea that he got a shrapnel wound in combat that day, as does Rassmann’s own testimony. Both Kerry’s journal and Rassmann say that Kerry got the buttock wound earlier in the day while they were blowing up VC rice stockpiles. That wound was not eligible for a purple heart because he wasn’t in combat.
So it seems clear to me that Kerry went in to the doc and said, “I got wounded in combat today”, and showed him his arm and butt. And he got a purple heart he didn’t deserve. If you have information otherwise, I’m all ears.
Second, Kerry’s whole ‘no man left behind’ story turns out to be a crock. Kerry has stated on numerous occasions that all the other boats fled the area, but only kerry realized that a man was in the water and he heroically turned around into withering fire and rescued Rassmann. That account has been pretty thoroughly debunked (see the Washington Post story).
Let me remind you of what the Swiftees said: They said that KERRY was the one who ran when the mine went off, while all the other boats went straight to the 3 boat to save the men on it. Let’s stipulate there was firing. If there was, then who were the real heroes? The ones who stayed and went to the aid of their stricken comrades, or the one who opened the throttles and tore off down the river as fast as he could?
It turns out that at least as far as boat movements go, the Swiftees were correct. Kerry left the scene, the rest of the boats stayed. According to Kerry, he went as much as 5,000 meters downriver (maybe 2500. He said there was '5000 meters of intense fire from both banks. Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and say he meant 2500 meters one way, and 2500 back). That means he went about a mile and a half downriver before turning around and coming back. That’s at least 10 minutes that he was gone, while the other boats stayed.
Rassmann’s testimony also doesn’t make sense. First, he’s contradicted himself on several occasions as to what actually happened. Then he said that when he hit the water he saw the other boats ‘bearing down on him’ so he had to dive to the bottom of the river. Unfortunately for that account, Kerry was on the opposite side of the river from the other boats. They were at least 50 yards to the side of where Rassman hit the water. Finally, Rassmann has said that when he surfaced he saw all the boats speeding away. When in fact, all the boats other than Kerry’s were stopped dead in the water BEHIND him, across the river. Given the confusion he shows in his various accounts, I don’t find it surprising at all that he might confuse suppression fire for people shooting at him.
Finally, I still haven’t heard a good answer to the problem of the ‘intense gunfire’. Those boats sat right in the middle of the ‘kill zone’ for about an hour and a half. Three men were pulled from the water. Thurlow jumped from his boat onto the 3 boat, rode it into a sandbar, was launched into the water, got pulled out, etc. A ‘bucket brigade’ was set up on the 3 boat to save it from sinking. That means a line of men standing out in the open bailing water. Then it was rigged for towing and slowly pulled downriver back to base.
And no one was so much as nicked by a bullet, and at most the damage from bullets consisted of 3 holes in one boat. Could someone explain this? Because I can’t. If there was ‘intense fire’ from both sides of the river, which were no more than 35 yards away, those boats should have been riddled full of holes. A swiftboat is very large - 50 feet long. How do you miss a 50 foot long target from 100 feet away? You don’t. Most of the men should be dead. These were not armored boats.
So rather than veering off into discussions of who funded the ads, and how involved Bush is, how about we just try to zero in on these problems? I would honestly like to hear explanations that make sense.
Well, no. When this sort of an attack appears in the middle of an election, engineered by supporters of one candidate, featuring people who have either made a career of attacking the other candidate or who have changed their story, when the story is at variance with one that has been out there for 35 years and is the story recited in citations for various military decorations, including decorations awarded some of the guys who are now doing the attacking, whether there might be some political motive is a fair area of inquiry. It is also fair to look into whether the one guy who might be expected to profit by the attack might have a hand in the orchestration of this very convenient appearance of this bunch of middle age guys with a sudden any highly publicized interest in setting the record straight.
What you may miss here, Sam, is that established record supports Senator Kerry. The revisionist have the burden of persuasion. It is not enough that they make the attack. It has got to be supported in order to be persuasive. Credibility is critical to carrying that burden. Motive is central to credibility. Consistency is central to credibility. Reliability is central to credibility. So far the Swift Boat Guys just lack the building blocks of credibility. To date the Swift Boat Guys’ operation and media blitz has all the ear marks of a political smear job, and a pretty brazen one at that.
Perhaps you remain confused Sam because you continue to believe in a group of liars. Perhaps because you swallow the story they spin hook line and sinker you are perplexed as it unravels around you. Why were there no bullet holes? Oh wait, because there were! Why did they do a bucket brigade for the whole afternoon? Perhaps, Sam they didn’t, and are lying about that too.
What of Rood and Langhofer and perhaps Russell? Are these men liars too?
elucidator may not feel your unswerving support for a smear campaign has bearing on your character, but I do. He’s just too nice - must come from living in the upper midwest.