Swift Boat Vets Site - seems phony

[Brutus]

@Hentor the Barbarian

… And I think you said that he tastes great too!

Word on the street is that he is ‘less filling’!

[Sevastopol]

@Liberal

Ah. Yet another debunking laid at my feet by the gentle hands of fact. What can I do but concede?

There I was, making all civil with Sam and guess who drops by to teach manners. Who asked you in?

[Fear_Itself]

@Sam Stone

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.

This is ridiculous. What possible danger was GWB in while serving in the Amarillo Air Force? I swear Sam, you get more stridently, blindly partisan with every post. You really see the world as black or white; Bush Good, Kerry Evil, and are willing to revise history to fit this conclusion. You have become a caracature of a right-wing lunatic, with no purpose in meaningful debate except as a cautionary tale of what can happen when one abandons critical thinking. Thank you for providing this service.

[wolf_meister]

Ann Coulter really cracks me up.
A staunch conservative. If America truly believed in staunch conservative values, women would not have the right to vote. Can you picture Ann Coulter if America had remained truly conservative? She’d be cooking dinner for her husband and 12 children while American men ran the country.
Hmmmmmmmm … Hey Ann, you are starting to convince me about the conservative side of the political spectrum. Now get in that kitchen !!!

[Kalhoun]

@Bricker

From what I’ve read, the guy that started the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth group, John E. O’Neill, seems to be motivated not so much by love of G.W. – he voted for Perot in 1996 and Al Gore in 2000 – as by a blind hatred of John Kerry.

And it’s apparently a long-standing grudge: he first heard Kerry’s Vietnam Veterans Against the War testimony to Congress while laid up in a hospital, and was furious at Kerry’s allegations of atrocities perpetrated by American troops. **He wrangled his way on to the Dick Cavett show in 1971 to debate Kerry, wearing, he says, the only suit he owned and paying his own travel expenses to get there. **
Now, the rest of the group may well be Bush partisans and shills - who knows - but his guy doesn’t seem to be a fan of Bush so much as an enemy of Kerry.

• Rick

(Bolding mine). And his wardrobe trauma has so much to do with the issue at hand. :rolleyes:

My understanding is that 99% of the guys on that site didn’t serve with Kerry. Regardless…*at least Kerry showed up for work! * I have a feeling the Swift Boat tactic is going to blow up in Bush’s face. He’s already looking like an asshole about it.

[Sam_Stone]

This is ridiculous. What possible danger was GWB in while serving in the Amarillo Air Force?

I take it you don’t know much about fighter jets. Especially the earlier fighter jets of the 50’s and 60’s? Well, let me clue you in - according to the Air Force Safety Center, the lifetime Class A accident rate for the F-102 was 13.69 accidents per 100,000 flight hours, much higher than the average for today’s combat aircraft. For example, the F-16 has an accident rate of 4.14, the F-15 is at 2.47, the F-117 at 4.07, the S-3 at 2.6, and the F-18 at 4.9.

Of the 875 F-102A production models that entered service, 259 were lost in accidents that killed 70 Air Force and ANG pilots.

During Bush’s term in the TANG, two pilots from his squadron were killed in F-102 accidents.

In fact, Bush’s service in TANG was more dangerous than the average Vietnam draftee’s. If he flew 1,000 hours in the F-102, he had about a 14% chance of being killed in so doing. In fact, the risk was probably higher because the majority of accidents would have happened in training or to pilots with little experience.

There was nothing ever routine or safe about flying an F-102.

[ElvisL1ves]

Despite Bush’s grounding himself as soon as he felt safe in doing so?

Were looking forward to your cite for the risk factors involved in serving aboard a frigate in a war zone, too. You know, the data you looked at in deciding Kerry was safe and sound. You did consider that before asserting yet another thing as true that you *want * to be true but really don’t know, right? That’s the biggest thing that keeps you from ever building any credibility here, ya know - hardly the only thing, certainly, but the biggest one. Next in line is refusing to admit your facts are false when others, less lazy than yourself, actually check into them, only to be met with pouts about being *personally * attacked.

Address those problems, and this feigned piety of yours about the importance of the word “liar” when applied to yourself, but that you yourself feel so free to throw at Kerry on the basis of information no more solid than the “disproven assertions” of the Swiftees and no one else, might fall into place as well.

[Fear_Itself]

@Sam Stone

There was nothing ever routine or safe about flying an F-102.

Neither was serving aboard the USS Gridley. Your assertion that GWB’s service was more valorious than that of personnel who served in a war zone is disgusting.

[Shayna]

@Sam Stone

Shayna: Are you using some alternate universe definition of ‘liar’? The accusation is that I lied in saying that there were no holes in any boats. I said that I said that when I said it that’s what the facts said, and I acknowledged it when the evidence about the three holes came out. The four links you posted are all messages in which I acknowledge those three holes. Or are you saying I’m a liar since I didn’t immediately accept those as slam-dunk proof of enemy fire? I said they were a point in Kerry’s favor, but then I continued to offer alternative explanations and explain why it wasn’t suffient proof. In other words, “Yes, the existence of three holes in a boat indicates that it was shot at. This is evidence on the one side. On the other side, being in an enemy crossfire for an hour and a half should result in a hell of a lot more than three holes.” I then explored alternate theories for those holes - specifically, that they got them in earlier combat. And that’s what you want to call me a liar over?

Where I come from, calling someone a liar is fighting words. You don’t toss the accusation around lightly. So, as I said to Hentor… PISS OFF

Sam, are you using some alternate universe definition of ‘liar’? Do you even read the shit you type, or does it just spew off your fingertips so furiously that it all becomes a blur? Did you pay attention to the part of your quote I bolded and underlined? That’s the part you are lying about (and still trying to). Left unchallenged, the casual reader who didn’t see that other thread would be left with the impression that you actually conceded the point about 3 bullet holes in the boat proving Kerry’s version of those events.

@Sam

I immediately acknowledged it (and even said it was a point in Kerry’s favor).

You Did NOT.

You continually argued that those 3 bullet holes were a) meaningless b) possibly from some other incident, or c) not enough bullet holes.

Thurlow’s boat had THREE holes. Which may have been from earlier damage (these boats were shot at all the time. If the damage was trivial, it might not even be reported, but would be noted and fixed the next time the boat needed maintenance.)

Hardly a “point in Kerry’s favor.”

None of the other boats had bullet holes, including Kerry’s boat. These guys sat in the middle of an intense crossfire for an HOUR AND A HALF, and the only damage is three bullet holes? No one injured? Again - go look at the Post’s recreation graphic of the river incident. These boats weren’t in the middle of the river, even. They had to go around the edge, and that’s where the mine went off. Those five boats were sitting no more than 20-30 yards from the bank. That’s about the length of my backyard. You know what? If you gave me an AK-47 and plopped five semi-trailers in my backyard, I’m pretty sure I could put more than three bullet holes in them. Especially if I’m joined by a bunch of friends with AKs and you give me an hour and a half to plink at them. I guarantee I’ll make those semis look like swiss cheese.

Hardly a “point in Kerry’s favor.”

The physical evidence indicates there was no heavy firefight. At most we have three bullet holes in one boat. This beggars belief. A Swift Boat is the size of a house trailer. It was about as far away from the banks as your neighbor’s house across the street. If I gave you an AK-47, do you think you could hit it? If a bunch of people armed with AK’s took aim at your neighbor’s house, do you think they might be able to put more than three holes in it? It makes no sense.

Hardly the “point in Kerry’s favor” you tried to paint it as.

(itallics yours)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.

Nope, that’s not a “point in Kerry’s favor,” either. In fact, it’s an outright denial. Couldn’t happen that way because you can’t explain it.

Yeah. The SBVT say that the bullet holes were old damage from previous missions. Who knows?

Don’t you find it odd that Kerry says he drove through 3,000 meters of ‘withering fire from both banks’, and yet there were no bullet holes in his boat? The river was only 75 yards wide, meaning he could be no farther than 35 meters from any bank. Were these the world’s worst ambushers?

Oh yeah, that’s a “point in Kerry’s favor,” alright. What could I have been thinking? :smack:

[elucidator]

@Sam Stone

…During Bush’s term in the TANG, two pilots from his squadron were killed in F-102 accidents…

Bit of a problem in definition there, Sam. Do you mean Bush’s “term” as defined by the most generous possible boundaries, that is, his own?

For instance, GeeDubya proudly exclaims in this biography, “A Change to Keep”, that he “flew with his unit for the next several years”. Record show that he flew for 22 months. By my arithmetic, that is two months short of two years. I suppose a very flexible definition of “several” might stretch to include “less than two”. Not the definition of “several” in standard usage, of course. But otherwise we might be forced to conclude that GeeDubya was…something short of candid.

And then there is his presidential bio, which used to say:

…George W. was commissioned as a second lieutenant and spent two years on active duty, flying F-102 fighter interceptors. For almost four years after that, he was on a part-time status, flying occasional missions to help the Air National Guard keep two of its F-102s on round-the-clock alert…

Until:

"Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, asked yesterday about that language, said: “It does not reflect the facts of his service. It will be corrected.”

Indeed, Danny Boy. It did not.

So how are we to define the time GeeDubya was under such desperate risk? For the time he actually flew, until his still unexplained failure to report for medical examination? Or up to the point of his actual discharge?

[minty_green]

Oh goodness, I go away for the weekend and Sam Stone finally gives us a list of what he’s claiming Kerry lied about. Much thanks to Diogenes for responding to this pack of lies back on page one. But since I can’t resist adding some further details that demonstrate the falsity of the SBVFTT claims that Sam parrots so dutifully:

@Sam Stone

But there are facts that can be evaluated. No speculation required. For example:

John Kerry’s 3rd purple heart:

1. John Kerry claimed that he was injured in combat by shrapnel when a mine went off under his boat. The wound listed in the medical report was specifically “shrapnel wound to the buttock”.

2. John Kerry’s OWN JOURNAL says that he got his buttock wound earlier in the day, when he and Rassman were destroying VC rice stockpiles with grenades.

Conclusion: Kerry lied. He saw an opportunity to turn his embarassing accident into a combat injury, and he took it. These documents are publically available and can be examined. Please explain this.

Certainly. The Personnel Casualty Report from that incident states that “While serving as officer in charge aboard the PCF-94 enaged in operations in the above river, LTJG Kerry suffered shrapnel wounds in his left buttocks and contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close aboard PCF-94.” A page later it says that Kerry “Received shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on right forearm when a mine detonated close to PCF-94 while engaged in operations on river.”

Now where exactly is it that you see Kerry lying in that report? The guy showed up at the aid station with shrapnel in his ass and contusions on his arm. The casualty report–which is incontrovertably NOT written by Kerry, see the signature on the last page?–says he had shrapnel in his ass and contusions on his arm. Nowhere does it say that Kerry told the medical folks that he’d gotten the shrapnel in his ass when the mine exploded. (In fact, that would be a pretty goddamned stupid lie, what with all the witnesses who knew he’d gotten the shrapnel in the ass blowing up the rice cache. Court martial material, really.) So why do you assume that Kerry lied about the ass shrapnel, when it’s at least as likely that the medical folks were either confused themselves or making a logical assumption about a couple minor wounds that they would not have any reason to give a hoot about?

Please also note that the Purple Heart citation does not specify what wound the medal was awarded for. It just says it’s for “injuries received on 13 March 1969.”

Please note even further that the official regulations governing award of the Purple Heart state that the medal shall be awarded for any “wound” sustained in, inter alia, “any action against an enemy of the United States.” The regs define “wound” as follows: A wound is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent sustained under one or more of the conditions listed above. A physical lesion is not required, however, the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer and records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official record. Kerry’s arm contusions were clearly treated by the medical folks, since they are noted right along with the ass shrapnel on the casualty report. Thus, irrespective of the ass shrapnel, Kerry was indisputably entitled to that third purple heart (or gold star or green clover or whatever) because of the contusions alone. That is, of course, completely contrary to what you and the SBVFTT crowd have been claiming.

Thus, to conclude, as you do, that “Kerry lied” about the incident, you have to accept that: (1) the personnel casualty report reflects a specific claim by Kerry that he received the ass shrapnel from the mine explosion, and not just the medical staff’s indifference or misunderstanding; (2) Kerry made this specific lie about the source of the ass shrapnel despite the fact that pretty much everybody on the mission knew it was from the grenade he chucked into the rice cache and could have given him up in a heartbeat (particularly since, as the SBVTT folks constantly remind us, they all hated Kerry even back then); (3) Kerry made this specific lie about the source of the ass shrapnel because he needed a third Purple Heart so that he could chicken out of Vietnam, despite the fact that he was already entitled to the third Purple Heart due to the arm contusions for which he received medical treatment.

But I’m sure you really do believe all those things. Believing, after all, is what true believers do.

[ElvisL1ves]

The guy who was the eyewitness for Thurlow’s Bronze Star recommendation (not Kerry as the liar Thurlow now claims and **Sam ** repeats as if it were fact) was, of course, unlike most of Kerry’s “unimpeachable” detractors, there. Lambert’s own Bronze Star citation:

The boats were exiting the river when a mine detonated under another Inshore Patrol Craft, inflicting heavy damage to the boat and wounding the entire crew. At the same time, all units came under small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks. Inshore Patrol Craft 51 immediately proceeded to aid the damaged Inshore Patrol Craft, where the Officer-in-Charge [Larry Thurlow] leaped aboard to render assistance. Petty Officer LAMBERT assumed command of Inshore Patrol Craft 51 and directed accurate suppressing fire at the enemy.

But maybe he was just “confused” too?

Sam, your only defense against the charge of being a liar is that you’re simply a chronic fool - one who will automatically believe anything Bush or his people tell you. Your refusal to face the facts you are given (have you read any of the cites offered?) makes you a coward as well.

[wolf_meister]

Sam Stone
Again, you quote safety records for US Fighter jets with no cite.

Hey, I could say that the danger to swift boat sailors in Vietnam was 5 times greater than that of F-102 pilots in the Texas Air National Guard.

Incidentally, there would be a plus side in learning to fly an older type aircraft. It would seriously reduce your chances of ever flying it in Vietnam. That ought to increase the safety factor somewhat. Gee, maybe Kerry should have gone through training on a Mississippi riverboat.

[Shayna]

@wolf_meister

Sam Stone
Again, you quote safety records for US Fighter jets with no cite.

Hey, I could say that the danger to swift boat sailors in Vietnam was 5 times greater than that of F-102 pilots in the Texas Air National Guard.

Incidentally, there would be a plus side in learning to fly an older type aircraft. It would seriously reduce your chances of ever flying it in Vietnam. That ought to increase the safety factor somewhat. Gee, maybe Kerry should have gone through training on a Mississippi riverboat.

Hell, even George W. Bush himself, believes John Kerry was more heroic and in more danger than he was…

From the Today Show, airing Monday, August 30, 2004 (transcribed from an MSNBC “teaser” airing 8/29/04 – I did not see the show, nor can I find an official transcript online yet).

[CLIP]
LAUER: Did John Kerry serve heroicly, in Vietnam, in your opinion?

BUSH: I think his service is heroic, yes, and he’s… he should be proud of it. And, uh, and I think that we ought to move beyond, uhm, [pause] the past. I mean, he’s proud of his service, I’m proud of mine. And the real question is who best to lead us forward?

LAUER: You think you both act… served on the same level of heroism?

BUSH: Thats… No, I don’t. I think him going to Vietnam was, was more heroic than me flying fighter jets. But he was in harm’s way, I wasn’t. On the other hand, uh, I served my country, had my unit been called up, I would’ve gone…[/CLIP]

[Liberal]

Alaskan crab fishermen have them both beat.

[rjung]

I think it’s safe to declare that Sam Stone has finally assumed the former december’s mantle of SDMB Republican Apologist™. There were some nice showings from Shodan and Brutus, but for sheer mind-clenching ignorance, Sam’s got them beat.

[lissener]

Sam, you’ve really lost it. I thought you’d as far down the google-eyed drooling lipfingering path to decemberville as it was possible for anyone who was capable of dressing himself could go.

But even december wouldn’t’ve offered the lulu that Bush’s time spent AWOL from the Alabama was more dangerous than Kerry’s Navy time in Viet Nam. I’m no longer angry at you; instead I’m indulgently amused, like with a retarded child, or a puppy. You’ve so clearly gone around the bend that it wouldn’t be right to believe that you were any longer responsible for what you say.

Go get yourself a lollipop and take a nap; you’ll feew a widdow bettow.

[lissener]

Man. I really must get back into the habit of perviewing:

I thought you’d **gone **as far down
AWOL from the Alabama National Guard

[Brutus]

@lissener

Man. I really must get back into the habit of perviewing:

Heh, sure thing, Madame Retardo. But I like you, and I like rjung, so here is a free hint: The problem with your posts have little to nothing to do with grammar.

[wolf_meister]

Shayna
Hey, that’s a great quote you found there. I wish Geogre Dubya would make that sentiment more widely known. If he did, the Vietnam issue would be settled (in my mind anyway).

Incidentally, I started this thread W-A-Y back there on Page 1. I had not intended this to be a “Kerry went to Vietnam - George Dubya didn’t” kind of debate. But then again, this is a very sensitive, emotional issue to a LOT of people and it’s easy to see how the “discussion” can heat up very quickly. That’s why I started it in the Pit.
I bypassed the moderator’s, put it in The Pit myself … and passed the savings on to you.

Anyway, I think my question was answered after the first few postings. What I meant by “phony” was that the swift boat site seems 100% populated by shills. To make a vaguely valid analogy, the swift boat site almost seems like an infomercial. Everyone in the “audience” is truly amazed at what the great Ron Popeil has invented and they embrace every word about the product with mindless enthusiam.

Well King, this case is closed.

Sargeant Preston
(Hey maybe Sam Stone would appreciate my quoting an old TV show about a Canadian mountie, eh ?)