But he was shot in the legs? How is he running, shot in the legs, and reloading a rocket launcher, and he a mere child? He was probably clutching his banky when Kerry happened upon him while fleeing from his boat. Bad luck. Kerry shrewdly appraised the situation, tacticaly speaking. Enemy wounded, disarmed, underage pretty much helpless - sufficient advantage to risk combat.
“Take that, you Hanoi Hegelian!” and he plugs him a couple of times.
And bravely he did bugger off!
Brave, brave, brave Sir Kerry!
(What? Me? No, I’m OK, its all just starting to kinda get to me…)
His peers? And who might they be? Do you mean his peers in the Viet Nam Veterans Against the War? Those peers? Or just returning vets in general? 'Cause if your suggesting that VN vets are his peers, and they are pressuring him, kind of puts a different light on things.
And indecisive? A bit pondersome, definitely. Myself, I’m about ready to have a President who isn’t quite so proud of his capacity to make big decisions guided by his “gut feelings”. That’s just feminine intuition with balls to scratch.
I wonder, you ever argue with guys who try to suggest we should have Rambo’d, that if those pansy politicians had just got out of the way… You use that argument? That increasing military pressure in Viet Nam would cause suffering for the POW’s? Did Nixon refrain from the Parrot’s Beak incursion because of his tender concern for our POW’s? I think not.
So, why then is it legitimate for war creeps like Nixon to ignore that issue but not legitimate for someone who opposes the war? What sort of twisted morality is that?
Why, bless your heart, he most certainly does! He’s about as much a military man as he is a rancher, but that don’t stop him from commando photo ops of the War President! He loves nothing better than a speech where he can pour praise all over our heroes, and stand close enough so that some will slop onto him.
I see here that I have to remind you that even you had to acknowledge, in a recent past thread, that the report of the doctor (at least on the last medal Kerry won) showed how misleading the swifters are.
We are talking about the BS interpretation of those events from part of the swifters. Charitably speaking, the swifter opinions of the events still remain unlikely hypothesis, and silly me; I also cite the medal citations, if not here, in many other occasions. As for lies, since it is obvious that overall this is a shitty and false attack to Kerry, why follow the swifter charade?
Once again, for everyone’s benefit. Kerry was not hot on the trail of some solitary and loincloth wearing child. He was in the middle of a serious firefight. His “target” was an adult and an established member of the VC. There were many other VC fighting at the same time, in the same place. This was verified by the enemy, including one of their officers,and the widow of a VC who was killed. This former enemy has no interest, vested or otherwise in the outcome. O’Neill and his group are liars. Since they are liars, that means their book is a lie. Period.
On one side, we have John O’Neill, his Swift Bullshitters cronies, and their book full of disputed facts.
On the other side, we have John Kerry’s account of events, the official military records of the event, the eyewitness accounts of the folks on Kerry’s boat, and (newly added) the eyewitness accounts of the Vietnamese witnesses who were there.
At what point in the game do you look at the picture and say “One of these things is not like the other?”, then throw it out? For O’Neill to be as accurate as he claims to be would require a conspiracy on a scale that’d make the Kennedy assassination look like Back-to-School Night by comparison.
