Yes, the left has tried mightily to taint the men. It made it to Wiki. I’m shocked.
Tell me, if the Swift Vets were proven to be 100% correct in their accusations and interpretations, is there any “taint” to what they did? Of course not. And they maintain, and I believe, that they are right.
The new book I cited seems to support that position. That and that we STILL don’t have Kerry’s complete military records, which he vowed to release.
Sorry, Kerry = Dishonorable Lying Sack of Shit. Evidence: 1) His testimony to the senate, creating a false impression and impugning men that weren’t there to defend themselves, 2) throwing his medals over the war and then seeking to get elected on those same medals, 3) his conduct as a Swiftboater as relayed by the Swift Vets.
Mr. Day impugns the integrity of the Winter Soldier testimony. The men who testified were lying, perjuring fabricators. Did he verify this? Has he presented any evidence that they were making shit up? And not just inaccurate, mind you, not merely slipshod on details, but, and I quote “absolute lies”. He must have been quite busy, running down all those testimonies. When, exactly, did he do this?
And if he didn’t, isn’t he guilty of precisely the same dishonorable behavior that you shrilly insist Kerry is guilty of?
This is a false statement. It’s a question of judging the evidence presented.
My position has no resemblance to the one you described. I acknowledge a big difference between the isolated events of horror that occur in war and a wide spread occurrence of atrocities with full knowledge of officers. The** evidence** indicates the latter is true.
I also reject that **all ** the accusations have to be true for Kerry’s statement to be factual. It’s not a matter of opinion. It’s simply a false statement. Over 100 combat vets testified at WS. There was a process of checking and double checking to verify their status as combat vets. Still a few phonies and exaggerators slipped in but apparently , according to your own cites, very few. That leaves about a hundred sworn testimonies of combat vets about what they witnessed first hand.
For Day or others to say they don’t believe it, or never witnessed anything like that doesn’t disprove a thing. Out of numerous platoons that served over the ten years we were there I can believe many or most of them didn’t participate in atrocities. The pertinent questions are, how many were, and did officers know? How many platoons would it take for Kerry’s statement that you keep repeating "
to be true? The emotional response that this somehow implicates *all *VN vets is just false. I understand it but it has nothing to do with the facts or the strong implications of the evidence.
But you’re not just choosing between Day and Kerry. Day’s statement accuses every combat vet who testified at WS of being a liar. Somehow you can accept that Kerry is maligning all VN vets but refuse to see how clearly Day is maligning the WS vets. Add to that that he is doing so without presenting any evidence that he is correct and his statement flies in the face of existing testimony. You keep trotting out his medals and the opinions of others as if they add credence to his statement. No more or less than Kerry’s or the WS vets.
IMO this is not a matter of opinion or political bias. The actual evidence presented indicates it is Day who is lying and maligning vets rather than Kerry.
I’m speaking specifically about his testimony before the Senate committee and not about any questions about his purple hearts or service in general.
A few others? Over 100 VN combat vets. Those few others? If we got 100 vets together that testified “I never saw or participated in any atrocities” does that prove anything about the honesty of the WS vets? No.
btw , on the site containing the testimony transcripts one vet says.
Shocking? I worked with a VN vet for several years who told me this. If a young gung ho officer ignored the experienced master Sargent and was putting his squad in unnecessary danger they would pool their money and someone would take him out.
I don’t have the time or the interest to research Kerry’s service and the details of his medals. I do think a commitment to honesty requires that we don’t accept obviously biased sources as completely accurate.
When reading biased material I try discern how much of a commitment to honesty the author has. To what degree are they willing to twist the evidence and reason to support their conclusions. If they say evidence X clearly indicates Y when reason and logic tells me that’s not so , I take that into consideration when gaging their credibility. That’s why I reject Michael Moore. He seems to want to support his own POV more than he wants to honestly present the facts. Then he has the nerve to call it a documentary. I don’t think the details of Kerry’s service 30 years ago is all that relevant to his being a candidate for president, especially given the choices we had at the time. He made a tactical error by making it a bigger issue than it should have been and another when he didn’t fight back effectively.
The swift boaters themselves are another issue. Did they misrepresent the facts in order to win an election? In the case of Day and his comments about Kerry’s testimony, the evidence indicates he lied. The evidence does not indicate Kerry lied. In lying he maligned a substantial group of VN combat vets, not just Kerry himself. The emotional response that Kerry maligned VN vets with his testimony is opinion not based in the facts or the existing evidence.
The other cite you offered seemed okay at first, but since I had already read the Wikki article which was intended to be informative of the facts without making political judgments, I noticed right away that the author left out some significant facts in order to make his argument more convincing.
I have no interest in reading Unfit for duty or any other book about Kerry’s service because the issue seems irrelevant. I am interested in judging the honesty factor in groups such as the swift boaters and Moveon.
Since you seem interested in looking at the evidence from both sides I recommend that you look at some of the actual testimony on you tube and read some of the testimony from the link I provided.
Then tell me if you think these men are all liars as Day clearly said they were.
Bud Day has also been criticized by more than just me. He was criticized by … wait for it… John McCain. On August 5, 2004. In an inteview with the Associated Press. McCain called Day’s participation in the anti-Kerry ads “dishonest and dishonorable”.
in looking for info on the SBVT to determine their credibility and their commitment to an honest presentation of the facts I came upon this Wikki article
I acknowledge that Wikki is not a 100% reliable and accurate source but I think it would be hard to present it as being full of liberal bias. It is intended to be a presentation of information without political agenda much more than books like Unfit For Command ,…wouldn’t you say?
I haven’t read the whole thing but here’s what stood out so far.
Purple Heart
Bronze Star
here’s the clincher
That smacks of exactly the kind of avoidance of pertinent facts I just mentioned. Someone who’s agenda matters more than their honesty.
There’s lots more. At the very least we can seriously question the memories of several members of SBVT since other combat veterans **who were there ** strongly disagree. When you factor in the political agenda as well I think it pretty much crushes their credibility.
That’s not to say Kerry is all honor and glory and they are the opposite. I’m only saying that somewhere along the way we have to put a little honesty and a reasonable assessment of the evidence above our political preferences. To believe Unfit for Duty is an accurate portrayal of Kerry is to deny additional credible evidence and the testimony of other vets. It’s an example of an incredibly obvious double standard. “The SBVT are telling the truth and everybody else that was there is lying” It’s ludicrous.
The fact that Thurlow himself was awarded a bronze star in the same incident that he criticized Kerry’s for removes his credibility wouldn’t you say?
Day did appear in a SBVT ad just not that specific one.
Day’s issue with Kerry {as well as other SBVT members} seems to be his involvement with The anti war movement after returning from VN rather than his service there. The problem is allowing yourself to be used as a political dupe and being so closely associated with all the lies told about Kerry’s service. If you are riding in the car during a drive by shooting you share some of the responsibility.
If they had simply expressed their opinions about Kerry’s anti war activities that’s one thing. Outright distortions of the truth used to attack him is quite another. Evidently McCain thought so too.
Regardless, it does not seem that McCain ever called Day or his actions “dishonest and dishonorable”. Part of Liberal’s argument is that he has McCain on his side (historically) and that McCain is being hypocritical by having Day speak on his behalf now. I’ve seen **Liberal **playing fast and lose with the facts lately, and he is often making uncited claims about McCain that don’t stand up to close scrutiny. Sound familiar?
As for Day, he was a POW when Kerry (at the very least indirectly) called him a war criminal on Meet the Press. I imagine Day might hold a bit of a grudge about that. No? Even Kerry said, during the 2004 campaign, that he felt he went a bit overboard in his statements about war crimes.
You’re probably right there, John. I recall McCain very weakly protesting the treatment of Kerry, then he got busy pressing wildflowers. He certainly doesn’t deserve the sort of praise Lib is serving him for integrity and fairness.
Anyway, there is much to criticize McCain over. His association with Day is not one of them. Perhaps McCain can no more disown Day than he could disown his own white grandmothers. (McCain had two.)
I’ll grant you that McCain didn’t call Day dishonest and dishonorable directly. It is obvious that McCain wasn’t too happy about that brand of dishonest politics at the time {since it also cost him the nomination} but he certainly seems okay with it now. If that’s not hypocritical it’s awfully dam close.
It’s obvious to me that Day and other vets feel that way about Kerry. I don’t see Kerry’s testimony as saying that at all. Saying that government officials lied and war crimes that were clearly against international law were being committed, hidden, and ignored with full knowledge of officers is a bitter pill to swallow but that doesn’t make it untrue. It also does not malign every vet who served and died or our POWs. As much as we’d like to simplify things to a we’re the good guys and they’re the bad guys type of mentality it’s about time we grew the fuck up and acknowledged that’s not how real life works.
If the SBVT {for truth, how ironic} wanted to vent their feelings about Kerry’s testimony and express their opinions about it there’s nothing dishonest in that. It was the extremes they went to to distort the facts that condemns them as dishonorable.
What gets me is how Day could condemn Kerry for what he thought was maligning the vets while he personally called the WS combat veterans liars and frauds. Isn’t that hypocrisy plain and simple?
ftr, after reading about Day’s service I am very reluctant to criticize him. He went through experiences I can’t even imagine. Still, that doesn’t mean he’s got his facts correct.
OKay that’s a good one. I object to people playing guilt by association with Day and McCain because of what happened 4 years ago. Let’s wait and see what happens this election and speak plainly about it when it goes down.
Like I said earlier, I really don’t want to go back and debate the Vietnam war. I was against it then, just like I’m against the Iraq war now. But McCain and Day have had a long and deep relationship, so I don’t see why he has to “reject and denounce” (that’s what pols are supposed to do these days ) him over what he did in 2004, and it shouldn’t be surprising that he did not say Day was “dishonest and dishonorable”, as he said about those folks who tried to smear Kerry’s military record. Day was focussed on Kerry’s anti-war activities, and I bet McCain doesn’t feel to happy about those either, even if he seems too have gotten over it whereas Day hasn’t.
I have some great friends with whom I strongly disagree on certain issues. I agree, there’s no reason for McCain to denounce and distance himself from Day personally. If tactics similar to the 2004 SBVT travesty start appearing we’ll see how JM reacts. Perhaps the SBVT could run another ad.
“Hi, remember us? We’re the Vets who lied about John Kerry’s service in the 2004 election. We just want you to know we now support John McCain, because it’s all about character”
I object to people playing guilt by association with Day and McCain because of what happened 4 years ago. Let’s wait and see what happens this election and speak plainly about it when it goes down.