In a document prepared by lawyers, such parsing is not only appropriate, it is damn near mandatory. Lawyers choose words with more care than poets.
No, it isn’t. See above.
Which means that roughly three-quarters of the men at issue do not support the Swiftvet organization. Presumably, this means either they could not be “located”, or were “located” but didn’t sign on. But we don’t know, we are not advised, we are advised of just about every fact or implication that might support their case, but not this.
Perhaps, but if you are to imply a certain degree of prejudice on my part, you must be willing to accept such for yourself. Thus far, you loudly declaim your impartiality, but presume to deny such to me. Not very sporting of you, Sam. Is it because I’m not Canadian?
As to the bloodhound, kindly refrain from disdain, there is much to admire in the bloodhound, such as his extraordinary capacity for intimate hygiene.
Between this Swift Bullshiters for Bush nonsense and Mr. Moto’s “revelation” that Kerry didn’t do anything on the morning of September 11th, I really wonder how much more desperate the Bush-Cheney camp will get before November?
Here in lies our difference. The Swift Boat Guys claim to have affidavits. I am not ready to assume that they have them or that they are accurate, if they exist. They have yet to display those affidavits for examination. Whether the affidavits are included in the promised book and weather the deponants have ever or will ever be subjected to unfriendly examination we do not know. One of the deponents, CPT Elliot seems to be running hot and cold about his statement. Against this we have the “official version” embodied in the citations for the two awards for meritorious service/valor which has survived challenge by some of the same Swift Boat Guys and what I am told was a pretty extensive examination by the Boston Globe (hardly Kerry’s house organ). We also need to factor in the fact that the Swift Boat Guys are a long shot from intellectually honest and impartial historians who are simply trying to establish the facts for academic purposes. These people have an agenda and are financed by people with an agenda. The reluctance of some people, my self included, to accept these guys at face value, as truth speakers, as voices crying in the wilderness, ought to be perfectly understandable. If you can’t understand that, if you can’t accept that these guys’ story has to be taken with a very big grain of salt and no small amount of scepticism then may I interest you in a series of video tapes detailing how Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster and how Bill Clinton controlled the drug trade in the Southwest?
Incidentally there is an outfit to deal with errors in military records. It is called, or was called, the Army (or Navy or Air Force or whatever) Board for the Correction of Military Records. This is where Major Reno, Custer’s second in command at the Little Big Horn, got his posthumous honorable discharge several years ago at the request of his family.
The official version says that Kerry’s boat was under fire. Everyone on Kerry’s boat says they were under fire. I have seen no evidence that any of the after-reports contradict the official version. The ONE (1) lone fucktit who has gone on record to challenge the official version (and even this dude admits that Kerry saved a man’s life) was on a different boat a football field away who is now being paid 35 years later to throw dogshit a Kerry with nothing but his obviously superior memory and powers of observation as evidence.
I like your slimy little insinuation of cowardice on Kerry’s part for “accelerating away,” btw. I guess you’re in a position to make judgements like that because you are such a highly decorated war hero yourself. You haven’t actually talked about your extensive combat experience, but I assume you must have been in a ton of firefights because someone who has never been under fire would never have balls big enough to insinuate cowradice on the part of a man who volunteeered for combat and came home with three Purple Hearts, would he?
Would he?
And never mind that your insinuation is nowhere reflected in the Navy’s own official record of events.
KERRY says he ‘accelerated away’. I was just repeating what is on the public record. Kerry SPECIFICALLY says he accelerated away “To get out of the kill zone”. And in the same message I said that even if Kerry weren’t under fire, I’d still consider his actions heroic if he thought he was.
So take your accusations of sliminess and your tedious personal attacks, and stuff 'em.
Are you telling me that there is no implication of cowardice in this little paranthetical? Even at face value, your statement implies that Kerry engaged in “incorrect behavior.”
You implied that Kerry “accelerated away” from the damaged boat rather than towards it and you also stated that this is “public record” and that it was part of the testimony of Kerry himself.
After reviewing Kerry’s actual words, (thank you, Hentor) do you still stand by those statements?
Can you cite any official record which contradicts John Kerry’s version of events?
Kerry has spoken of that mission many times. I came across his statement that he ‘accelerated out of the kill zone’ a couple of days ago. I’m still looking for it.
But it’s a rather moot point, isn’t it, since I clarified that I intended no slander for that? And since in the same message I said that it seemed Kerry’s actions were heroic no matter what happened, why would you choose to make a big deal out of this sentence, calling me ‘slimey’ and questioning my own bravery? Are you really so childish that you just can’t resist devolving into attacks on other posters’ character over such a trivial thing? Or is this an attempt to shout me down?
You know, there is a parallel pit thread going on on this topic. If you really feel the burning need to attack my character, could you at least have the decency to do it there?
Anything yet, Sam? A cite for what you avowed were Kerry’s own words? I ask because with the delay, I am wondering if this was something that you gleaned from a Swift Boat Veterans for Distortion website or some similar source. Nonetheless, it could be that he described it that way once, but did not in the article I linked to. I await your results.
Nope. Can’t find it. I’m not sure why you’re making a big deal of it, because as far as I can figure accelerating out of the kill zone is standard operating procedure and makes a lot of sense. I did not mean to imply any criticism of Kerry over that phrase.
But while we’re here, let me ask a question: How many of you would truly be bothered if it turned out that John Kerry lied for twenty years about secret trips in Cambodia, including on the floor of the Senate in 1986, offered as evidence in deliberations over government policy?
My answer to your question: Kerry says he was in Cambodia, the official records say he was near the Cambodian border. We know that US troops went into Cambodia illegally and we also know that no one in the chain of command can ever admit to it without confessing to a crime.
So basically, there is no way to prove that Kerry was lying about having been in Cambodia just like there’s no way to prove that GWB is lying about showing up for duty in Alabama.
Plus, even if Kerry was lying through his teeth about Cambodia, I personally still would not give a shit. It’s still imperative to get rid of Bush and Kerry is the only one who can do it.
And contrary to popular belief, neither honesty nor good character are particularly important, or even necessarily helpful traits in a president…
Lord love a duck! Sam, we lied about being in Cambodia! The President lied about Cambodia, the Vice-President lied about it, the Undersecretary of Agriculture for Sorghum lied about Cambodia!
How upset would I be if John Kerry singlehandedly warped the direction of American foreign policy by his incessant repetition of his story about spending Xmas in Cambodia? Gosh, its hard to say, I have to consider the huge consequences, all the footnotes that may need be re-written. It could take a long time to track down both of the people who gave a shit.
Apparently, at least three of the five men in Kerry’s boat say they were not in Cambodia. The Navy says he wasn’t there. Kerry’s own story about it has changed several times, and now apparently the campaign is saying he was “near” the Cambodian border.
But that destroys the whole story. If Kerry was only near the Cambodian border, then he lied to Congress about it and used his personal knowledge of illegal activities as evidence against proposed government policy. The whole point to the story was to prove that the U.S. government was lying about what it was doing in Vietnam. If that story is fabricated, it seems to me that that’s a pretty big deal. And it’s not just 30 years ago - Kerry has repeated that story on numerous occasions up to the recent past.
And if it’s true that all the other men are disputing it because they are forbidden to speak of it, why is Kerry speaking out? Isn’t he in violation of his oath as an officer to make that action public in order to thwart the aims of his government?
He was close enough to the border to have gone over the border. He could have gone over, completed a mission and been back in the space of a few hours. It’s logistically possible and it’s completely unremarkable that the Navy denied it. The Navy had to deny it. It was illegal.
Some oaths were made to be broken, especially when the aims of the government are devious and evil. . Who gives a fuck anyway, it was 35 years ago.
BTW, those crewmates who say they weren’t in Cambodia- Did Kerry ever SAY those guys were in Cambodia?
Oh…and let me say it again in case I wasn’t clear the first time- even if Kerry was lying I still don’t care. He was doing it for the right reason. I am much more comfortable with a man who lies to stop a war than I am with a man who lies to start one.
You know, the time that has elapsed since Vietnam is not that much less than the time that had elapsed between WWII and George Bush Sr.'s run for prez in '88. I remember an attempt by somebody or another to smear GHWB’s actions in that war too…something about illegally strafing a boat…some other nonsense about who was or was not left behind in his plane when he got shot down and bailed out. I don’t even remember the details because I didn’t care and talking about Bush’s WWII exploits only made Dukakis look more like a weenie anyway. I also remember the Reublicans protesting that whatever Bush had done in a war some 40 years prior was ancient history and had no bearing on the election. I agreed. How many years must elapse before Kerry’s war record is ancient enough not to dredge up?
His stories are pretty detailed. He talks about how they were shot at by Khmer Rouge on one side, and friendly South Vietnamese forces on the other.
And you couldn’t just sneak in to Cambodia. The Cambodian border was patrolled by larger boats, not Swifts. And the river entrances were blockaded. And the first excursion into Cambodia was in 1970, not by a Swift boat. Kerry claims to have done so in 1968. No one supports him on this story.