STOOPE, you’ve been called on this before. Cut it the hell out. By now, I wouldn’t believe you if you insisted the earth was round; you’ve become quite a shameless liar.
I think it only seems that way to you because you’re coming in at the end of the argument. The acrimony in this thread is just the fall out of an extremely, detailed cite intensive, 20 page debate in GD. Sam has shown a propensity in that thread to igtnore facts which are damaging to the Swifties and to insist that any allegation amounts to a legitimate “question” or “dispute” about Kerry’s war records. The Bronze Star incident is a perfect example. No matter how much evidence is presented in Kerry’s favor- and despite the fact that the lone Swiftie witness has been discredited by his own citation- Sam continues to pretend that the issue has not benn settled. It would not be possible to present any more documenary or eywitness evidence in Kerry’s favor. It has long ago reached the point where disputing whether there was enemy fire from the shores has simply become an absurdly unreasonable position.
What you’re seeing here is frustration, not a debate. We already had the debate.
Aw, Lib, that was some really spectacular rubbish. As Dio pointed out, you’ve come storming in without really knowing what the hell’s been going on. Which is not terribly surprising considering you’re the board’s biggest attention whore. Just love to stir shit up, dontcha?
Anyway, have fun. We all gotta get our kicks somehow. 
See this is the thing that really persuaded me. The SVs don’t mention it and neither does Sam but the 4 months was Kerry’s 2nd tour in Vietnam. He completed an unimpeachable 1 year tour on the Griddley. From what I was hearing this was a surprise.
It casts an entirely different and favourable light on Kerry. He could have returned home a vitnam vet, uninjured and fully credited and used that status to exploit his political ambition. No sweat.
Instead, he volunteers for a 2nd tour in a dangerous area and receives some injuries there. That is an act of heroism, injuries or no. It is deplorable that anyone tries to play down the extent of his service in his country’s armed forces.
Further I’ve not seen any evidence that Kerry has claimed his service was extraordinary by comparison with his peers. I think you may be in danger of trying to knock down a straw man here.
The 250 Peers: Simply, they weren’t peers in any sense that makes them a more reliable witness of Kerry’s conduct in Vietnam that you or I. They didn’t see him or know him. By now it is clear their grievance is with his post-Viet conduct and they have joined any cause that will attack the man’s reputation.
Liberal go fuck yourself, idiot.
Diogenes: You know, you keep claiming that I keep ignoring the facts that you are shoving down my throat, but did it ever occue to you that perhaps YOU are the one who doesn’t have the facts?
For instance, you just finished saying that only one witness agrees that Kerry wasn’t under fire on the Bay Hap River when he got his bronze star. But this is not true, and I have pointed this out repeatedly. Yet you keep saying “Only one person”.
In fact, There were five swift boat skippers on the river that day. Jack Chenowith, Larry Thurlow, Richard Pees, John Kerry, and a man named Droz who was later killed in Vietnam.
Of the four surviving swift boat skippers, only Kerry says they were under fire. Chenowith, Thurlow, and Pees say there was not. Got that? Three against one.
You also have the habit (common among all of us) of deciding for yourself that something has been ‘debunked’ and then simply refusing to entertain opposing viewpoints from then on. For instance, you claim that Thurlow has been discredited by his own citation. This is total rubbish. His citation would be drawn from the same after-action report that got Kerry his bronze star. If one is wrong, so will the other be. Why did Thurlow not dispute it when he got it? Well, he has an explanation which I don’t find totally satisfactory - he says he didn’t get the citation until a few months after he was back from Vietnam, and he didn’t pay much attention to it. He figured the main thing that got him the Bronze star was his jumping onto an out-of-control boat and saving it and the crew. This is at least plausible, and you don’t do your side any favors by ignoring this and simply repeating that he has been discredited and is not worth listening to.
But if you want to go by that standard, we have already got Kerry in two major lies (Christmas in Cambodia, and claiming the rice shrapnel was a battle wound). Does that mean everything he says should now be discounted? For that matter, James Rassmann has changed his story several times. Should we throw out his testimony? Or does the Diogenes standard of proof only apply to your political enemies?
See, this is exactly what happened in that thread. You and others unilaterally decided that the issue had been ‘debunked’, and then started shouting down anyone who dared to differ. That was the point at which I quit. I realized that minds were closed and the hostility level had once again risen to the point where I found logging on to the SDMB was no longer enjoyable, but depressing. At that point, I left the debate.
Now, I could pull a trick from the Hentor playbook and start screaming that you’re a liar, but I understand that when debates get heated and everyone starts shouting, the facts start to get blurred. Which is a good reason why people should NOT start shouting at each other, even if you think the other side is being pig-headed. Because once accusations of lying, partisanship, stupidity, etc start flying around, debate shuts down and everyone retreats into their corners and puts up the barricades.
Sevastapol said:
It was NOT his second tour ‘in Vietnam’. The Gridley qualified for a vietnam service ribbon because it was technically there for a small part of the time (Kerry spent most of his tour on the Gridley in places other than Vietnam). But the Gridley served off shore and was never in any kind of danger.
When Kerry volunteered for Swift Boats they were doing relatively safe coastal patrols. They changed to riverine combat AFTER Kerry volunteered, and he was none to happy about that. He has said so himself, just like he has admitted that he joined the Navy because it seemed like the safest alternative AFTER he was denied a deferment to study in Paris.
I think Kerry should be commended for his service, but lets be honest about it - he tried to stay out of Vietnam with a deferment. When that was denied, he did a very common thing to stay out Vietnam - he volunteered for the Navy before being drafted into the army. The Navy was considered safe duty at that time. And in fact, even by the end of the war the Navy had fewer Vietnam casualties than any other service, by a wide margin.
To be fair, the river combat he engaged in later was dangerous as hell - one of the most dangerous duties the regular forces in Vietnam could do. But then, the debate is whether or not once he got put in dangerous duty he gamed the system to get out as quickly as he could.
Certainly not in so many words, but he has certainly implied it. In fact, he’s done worse - his “no man left behind” story implied that his fellow skippers fled the scene while he went back under fire, and the one fact we are sure of now is that the other boats did NOT leave. So he denigrated them to puff up himself. Despicable.
Let’s be clear about the breakdown of the numbers. Of the 254, 17 were fellow Swiftboat Skippers - you can see all of them in the picture of Kerry on the SBVT home page. These are men who routinely went on missions with John Kerry. 60 men served with Kerry in the same unit while he was there, and were eyewitnesses to some incident or another. The rest were people who served on Swift Boats but who did not personally know John Kerry or serve in his unit at the same time he did.
Funny how you seem to have forgotten about all the other eyewitnesses who have supported the (at least 5) official accounts. Funny how you have ignored accounts of the incident which were not authored by Kerry. When you say that it’s “three against one” you are selectively giving an impression that those were the only witnesses. This is a dishonest tactic on your part. I haven’t seen any evidence from the other skippers (and frankly, I no longer trust you enough to take you at your word) but if its true, their assertions are contradicted by all the documentation as well as several of their own crewmates.
What do you have to say about O’Neill telling Nixon he was in Cambodia in a swift boat?
What do you have to say about GWB lying about what branch of the service he was in?
The Gridley counted as a Vietnam tour. The Navy says so. Kerry volunteered for service and specifically requested Vietnam. They gave him the Gridley. he requested another tour in-country and specifically requested swift boats. As to how dangerous Kerry may or may not have though that was, let me remind you, he was in the fucking Navy. The infantry was not an option for him. The swifties was about the only way he could have gotten into the Shit. He could have easily requested another Tour on a frigate or simply gone home.
And for fuck’s sake, half the time you swiftie lovers are insisting that Kerry was medal hunting and the other half the time you’re trying any way you can to deny that he ever showed any courage. Which is it? Was he looking for Purple Hearts or was looking to avoid the Shit? Make up your fucking mind already.
Funny how you are furiously trying to change the subject. I just pointed out that YOU are REPEATING a claim that I SPECIFICALLY disabused you of REPEATEDLY in this debate. You have repeatedly said that there was only one other eyewitness, when I have named three of them. Then when I point that out, you spin it around and accuse me of 'ignoring other eyewitnesses", which is just what YOU dd.
And I get accused of dishonest debating tactics. Gah.
Funny how you can’t read. Because I just finished specifically talking about eyewitness accounts that agreed with Kerry.
No, I’m correcting your erroneous statement that there was only one eyewitness who disputes Kerry’s claim of fire. Got it?
Saying this after what you just did takes enormous balls.
Well, feel free to educate yourself. Then maybe you won’t look silly when you accuse me of lying about something which is common knowledge in this debate.
As for “all the documentation”… It ALL comes from the spot report. Which Kerry may have written. There is no other source of official documentation, unless it can be shown that there were multiple spot reports. It might help if Kerry signed his Form 180, so we could try to determine that. But he refuses. What’s he hiding?
Since O’Neill is not a character witness, and since we aren’t relying on his personal testimony, what he says or does is irrelevant. He has presented evidence, and collected affidavits from witnesses. That is the evidence in front of us. Why not evaluate the evidence rather than following the Democratic ‘Brown Book’ smear tactic, which is designed to throw smoke over the issue rather than enlighten us?
I have no opinion on that, since I haven’t followed that discussion. Again, could you please try staying on topic? Bush could molest Collies, and it would have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Kerry lied about his service in Vietnam. Do try to stay focused. I understand that your white-hot burning hatred for George Bush makes that difficult, but at least make the effort.
[/quote]
The Gridley counted as a Vietnam tour. The Navy says so.
[/quote]
And I just finished agreeing with that. What I was disputing was the claim that John Kerry spent two tours “in” Vietnam. This may seem like a nitpick, but it’s not because it is a common tactic for people to inflate their service. More than one Navy guy who was never in any sort of danger has claimed to be “in Vietnam”, in an attempt to leave the impression that he was one of the guys dragging a rucksack through the rice paddies with an M-16. The people who were actually “in country” take strenuous exception to those who make that particular disingenous claim.
Kerry’s service on the Gridley was no more dangerous than service on a Navy ship today. And it was damned sure nowhere near as dangerous as Bush’s duty flying fighter jets back home. By Kerry’s own admission, he volunteered for Swift boats at a time when it was expected that they would not see combat either, and he was plenty upset when the mission was changed to send them ‘in country’. He says he volunteered for Swift Boats because it was the closest thing in Naval service to the type of boat his hero John Kennedy commanded in WWII. So let’s not spin this as John Kerry heroically standing up and volunteering for dangerous duty. Even HE says that that’s not the case.
Not true.
I think you’re getting behind on the new evidence. Two independent accounts have surfaced in the last few days. Neither was authored by Kerry.
You know, what really chafes my ass about this whole issue is not simply that the MF are getting away with it, but the fact that it is actually working. Sure, as others have pointed out in the original GD thread, it may not have had the devastating effect that Rove & Co might have hoped for, but damn it, have they ever gotten some positive mileage out of a packs of lies!
Close to a month has gone by ‘debating’ this shit, and with only two months left till the elections a single day that passes without taking this Administration to task for their multitude of sins is no doubt a victory for them. Say what you will about them – I have. Nothing good. – but when it comes to political maneuvering they sure know how to line-up their lemmings. Kerry’s camp better wake up and wake up soon, for their whole strategy still seems to be centered on the ABB effect with just a dash of “Just as Macho as the Other Guy.”
Meanwhile, what ever happened to Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, Najaf, Israeli Spies possibly influencing foreign policy, the countless lies, the jobless recovery, terror alerts (expect more), the policies that have led the US to become the pariah of nations (can’t even send an official rep to The Olympic Games), etc. etc.?
But no, forget that! Here we are “debating” this garbage over and over and over again. Except it’s more like playing whack-a-mole, smash one of the little turds and boom! another one pops right out. Keeping the focus right where The Republicans want it – away from those issues. Hell they’ve even enlisted foreign mercenaries to their ideological payroll. And good ones too. All polite and doe-eyed, they protest: “What, little innocent old me? I’m just looking for The Truth.”
The Tefflon Don had nothing on these guys.
Volunteered to serve in a combat position in the Vietnam war. Was geographically there, giving due support and service to the cause. That’s ‘in Vietnam’ enough for me. And I daresay for near enough everyone.
The ‘No Danger’ point. I repeat, that is an easy observation to make, with the benefit of hindsight. Takes not a thing away from Kerry’s courage of dutifulness.
Lots of negative surmise here.
Sam you are doing it again, drawing the most negative and pejorative inference from facts that do not support that. Instead it is all surmise. See why I have problems with your credibility.
But let’s talk about ‘white-hot fury’. What are the S-V’s mad about? Is it the exact location of Kerry’s firefight around Christmas? Is it the precise circumstances of the water-rescue, or one of Kerry’s medal awards? Seems rather trivial to burn a grudge over for 35 years of so.
It looks to me, instead, as though someone with a pre-existing grudge scoured the records and recollections to see if there was any dirt to dig. Is this person the S-Vs or the GOP. Let us assume in charity it is the S-Vs.
I’m asking myself, what is their grudge? Helpfully they say so on their site. The winter soldier testimony.
Being as their honourable cause is truth: What undisclosed truth is there about that testimony? Why aren’t we discussing that? Enough prologue.
This is exactly the point of the entire “debate”. Folks like Sam Stone aren’t really “searching for the truth”; they’re doing whatever they can to distract from the real issues and cast a shadow of doubt over Kerry’s war record. And sadly, they’re succeeding. It’s fucking shameful.
On the other hand, I doubt this will have that much long-standing affect. People can only listen to lies for so long…and there will be enough other crap spewed from both sides in the next two months that this will eventually fade away.
And then poor Sam will have to find something else to smear Kerry with. (Meanwhile, we can look forward to lots more insane rambling and bomb-throwing from Lib. Which is always a hoot.)
SamStone
You have a site for that statistic?
Considering Sam doesn’t even have a stake in this election- for godsakes, the results of the election are going to have way more of an impact on people like myself, Diogenes, and GIGObuster than Sam.
Why the hell do you CARE so much about this, Sam?*
*[sub]I’m not trying the whole, “You aren’t American, so shut up!”, but I find it odd that Sam is so obsessed with US politics, and such a shill for Bush when he doesn’t even LIVE here![/sub]
I didn’t offer a statistic, but an assertion. An obvious one, it seems to me. Can you count how many people in offshore naval vessels were killed in Vietnam? Now contrast with the number of people killed flying F-102’s. Bush’s duty was dangerous as hell. Those old Century-Series fighters were very dangerous. Many, many pilots were killed in accidents in them, including two members of Bush’s squadron.
The war on terror is a global issue. It so happens that the Americans, being the only country with a world-ranging military will be the ones who have to take the initiative. But how that war is approached will have drastic ramifications for the future of the planet. I have a young daughter. I don’t want her to grow up in a world where people looked the other way for a few years while the problem got worse and we’re forced into a massive conflict. Which is what I see happening if Kerry is elected and goes after terrorists as a ‘police matter’ and everyone tries to bury their heads in the sand and pretend the problem doesn’t exist.
But that’s another issue, and your question is yet another example of how people around here keep making these arguments personal. Guin, have I EVER questioned anything about your personal life? Have I ever demanded to know why you are interested in a subject? Why must some of you continually go after your fellow posters personally? I don’t get it.
If it makes you feel better, I strenuously lobby my own government to provide more troops to that cause. We’re all in this together.
Ya, right. The oodles of furriners that are Pro-Kerry/Anti-Bush, they just sort of slipped under your radar, huh?
Besides, this has been covered before. This is a primarily American board; Everyone is welcome (well, everyone is allowed, but apparently not welcome, if expressing the ‘wrong’ political view) to participate. I don’t catch you holding your tongue too much when it comes to commenting on matters not-American, so extend some common courtesy to others who want to post about American matters. Even if they don’t agree with you.
Should us Canadians just butt out of discussions regarding the next leader of the free world?
How would you feel if you found out that Sam was actually an undocumented Mexican gardener living in Montana?