John Kerry: The closer we get, the more bullshit there is.

Pick a card, any card.

Published on August 16, 2004 By adnauseam In Politics

I note in the South African press that Kerry is being keelhauled again. I mean there is an election in just over two months so there have to be accusations in the Great American Political Game! So pick a card from the following:
* He went into Cambodia and committed atrocities.
* He was too scared to go into Cambodia.
* He went into Cambodia to visit Angkor Wat.
* He bribed people for his medals.
* His medals are fake.
* He let George Bush down while defending Hill 17.
* He let LBJ down by joining the army.
* He was at My Lai.
* He was near My Lai.
* He ran a drug ring in Saigon.
* He pretended to be in Nam.

See what I mean? Pick one and send it to CBS.

Fact is, John Kerrey went to Nam along with John McCain and Bob Kerrey and thousands of others. And some did bad things. On the positive side, many more were just fighting for their country. Period. They deserved their medals because they went into one very sick war--and didn't flee to Canada.

Give us a break Bushites! The problem with American politics is that if a guy is going ahead the opposition invents some bullshit to slow the support.

I think Bush is going to win for all the wrong reasons but I think too that John Kerry could do without all the inventors who rush to make up a new story.

A lot of Americans (not all), need to grow up!

Comments (Page 3)

Deference

on Aug 17, 2004

I'm aware of Moore's more sensational line of questioning, I'd prefer to read his books than watch his films which I believe to be technically poor in execution. I'd like to remind both of you gentleman of my prior post near the top (post # 3). I'm no flower - flinging liberal.

Remember, these folks have done meticulous research, and provided fact after fact to prove their claims - even if some of their facts are only "eye-witness" accounts from third parties that were serving in the same areas as John Kerry.

As I mentioned and as I'm happy to see you agree, the majority of of the claims are heresay. As for the evidence, I am sure the swiftvets are lying and have been researching their claims for the last few weeks. I challenge you to do the same, if for no other reason than to back your own opinion. As for being charged for libel and slander, I'd have to actually lie and present it as fact, much the way the swiftvets have been doing. I'm not too worried about them coming after me, as I'm sure they are too busy keeping their own hutts from catching fire. Perhaps I will present some of the items I've been ekeing out, but I sure as heck will not share any till I'm certain of their accuracy.

As for the mainstream media, God help us, what ever happened to real journalism? As manipulative, biased and watered down for the lowest common denominator as today's news is, I wonder how any could unearth the truth and actually see it broadcast. Whatever happened to objectivism?

Lee1776

on Aug 17, 2004

Deference

I have to agree with you that the media no longer fields an complete view of all events. Many of times I read of news organiation rushing a story to print/show without even checking the facts or refences. How often do you here a top breaking news story one day and two weeks later fined a correction on page 30 stating it was all wrong. But the damage is done and everybody now thinks it is true.

More then once I have seen opionon editorials on the front page (LA Times). Unfortunately people naturaly think its the truth.

How often have we heared that the info came from an unnamed soarse.

Then the same article is soon speard all over the news media. Check the writer on many of the same articles from ABCnews, CBS, CNN, and FOX websites and you will find many come from the AP.

terpfan1980

on Aug 17, 2004

Deference - I still would like to know what you believe are lies by the SwiftVets.

Even going to factcheck.org Link you wind up with this statement at the end of the discussion about the Swiftvets vs. Kerry:

At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth.

messybuu

on Aug 17, 2004

Since it's Moore's movies that are currently the main focus when discussing him, don't you think that the Democrats should condemn his half-truths and deceptive editing and wording?

As for the mainstream media, God help us, what ever happened to real journalism? As manipulative, biased and watered down for the lowest common denominator as today's news is, I wonder how any could unearth the truth and actually see it broadcast. Whatever happened to objectivism?

Yet another reason I see for condemning Michael Moore.

Deference

on Aug 17, 2004

I'm preparing a small piece on the S.B.V.T. debacle, something I hope will clear the air a little and save you all the time of researching it yourselves, I will provide references / sources so that you will be able to discern the truth for yourselves. I hope you will enjoy, stay tuned as I'll submit it late tonight or sometime tomorrow. Let us all be vigilant in the search for truth in an era of disinformation.

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 17, 2004

Unlike the Bush campaign, which was hounded repeatedly by the media and by the likes of Terry McAuliffe, James Carville, and many others, the Kerry campaign has *not* released the records of Kerry's military service.

Please show me the time DURING THE 2000 CAMPAIGN when Bush released his military records. He didn't.

The FACT that Kerry's opponents seem to ignore is that Kerry DID serve--they have instead taken to attack the WAY in which he served as an odd way of defending a president who played privileged son and made sure his ass was out of harm's way.

Even if just for four months, Kerry WAS in harm's way. Bush's biggest fear was getting shot down by some flashback suffering vietnam vet with a bazooka in the backwoods.

Deference

on Aug 17, 2004

SWIFT BOAT VETERANS FOR TRUTH: MORE CONTEXT, MORE TRUTH

There is a media storm circling John Kerry and his service. Did he deserve his medals, did he serve honorably, and are the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (S.B.V.T.) living up to their name? The answer is as murky as the waters in the ‘Nam our Swiftboats (or Patrol Fast-Craft ) patrolled nearly thirty – five years ago. It can only be held as factual as the belief the individual perceives in each dirty whirlpool every one cycles through as their search for the truth leads them. This short essay only attempts to provide a more in-depth view than that which our bloated and careless media chooses to gloss over. The people deserve more than that which is offered to them by the AP, Fox, CBS, etc. That said, let us begin exploring the organization that is S.B.V.T. .
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was officially launched on May 04, 2004 (http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/index.php).
“It's notable that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was formed not by a Swift Boat Veteran but by Merrie Spaeth, a Republican PR hack from Houston whose late husband ran for the office of Lieutenant Governer in Texas with George W. Bush…Suffice it to say that the money behind Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is the same money behind the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library Foundation (http://www.warblogging.com/).”
Their mission has been to call out Kerry on his faux paux’s regarding the Vietnam War and to rattle his purported account(s) on what actually occurred in those rainy days spent fighting the “man in the black pajamas”. They only want to set the record straight, they say, and allow the justice of dead men the glory they deserve, not to disgrace the men in uniform who did their duty. An excerpt of the letter the two – hundred and fifty men sent to Senator and presidential candidate John Kerry:
“It is our collective judgment that, upon your return from Vietnam, you grossly and knowingly distorted the conduct of the American soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen of that war (including a betrayal of many of us, without regard for the danger your actions caused us). Further, we believe that you have withheld and/or distorted material facts as to your own conduct in this war. “
From the founding members themselves we hear these quotes;
“We resent very deeply the false war crimes charges he made coming back from Vietnam in 1971 and repeated in the book "Tour of Duty." We think those cast an aspersion on all those living and dead, from our unit and other units in Vietnam. We think that he knew he was lying when he made the charges, and we think that they're unsupportable. We intend to bring the truth about that to the American people.
We believe, based on our experience with him, that he is totally unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief."
John O'Neill, spokesman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

"During Lt.(jg) Kerry's tour, he was under my command for two or three specific operations, before his rapid exit. Trust, loyalty and judgment are the key, operative words. His turncoat performance in 1971 in his grubby shirt and his medal-tossing escapade, coupled with his slanderous lines in the recent book portraying us that served, including all POWs and MIAs, as murderous war criminals, I believe, will have a lasting effect on all military veterans and their families.

Captain Charles Plumly, USN (retired)

"Thirty-five years ago, many of us fell silent when we came back to the stain of sewage that Mr. Kerry had thrown on us, and all of our colleagues who served over there. I don't intend to be silent today or ever again. Our young men and women who are serving deserve no less."
Andrew Horne

"In my specific, personal experience in both coastal and river patrols over a 12-month period, I never once saw or heard anything remotely resembling the atrocities described by Senator Kerry. If I had, it would have been my obligation to report them in writing to a higher authority, and I would certainly have done that. If Senator Kerry actually witnessed or participated in these atrocities or, as he described them, 'war crimes,' he was obligated to report them. That he did not until later when it suited his political purposes strikes me as opportunism of the worst kind. That he would malign my service and that of his fellow sailors with no regard for the truth makes him totally unqualified to serve as Commander-in-Chief."
-- Jeffrey Wainscott
The founding members are listed here and on the S.B.V.T. web page as these individuals, all of which have given statements in similar regard:
Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann, USN (Ret.) Chairman
Captain Charley Plumly, USN (Ret.)
William E. Franke
Alvin A. Horne
Bill Lannom
John O’ Neill ( the officer who took over John K. Command )
And Wymouth Symmes, Treasurer

Notice a trend in the statements above? Nowhere does any honourable or distinguished veteran actually say that John Kerry did any great legal wrong. Instead they seem disappointed that John K. did not support their position on the war in Vietnam. They all went home tired and wearied, spat upon and disrespected by civilians. They seem embittered by their fellow comrade who spoke out against a war that was unfavorable by the general public, feeling betrayed, most undoubtedly. It seems that sour grapes are the order of the day, no matter how justified their feelings. Kerry went home to organize a group known as the “Vietnam Veterans Against the War” and testified to Congress that unspeakable atrocities occurred during the war such as raping, killing of livestock and civilians. We’ve had many years to disseminate whether or not that is true, and the general public seems to be informed of such things actually occurring. Whether or not those things did occur by the fellow men Kerry served with is questionable, however, and nothing came of his accusations. The Nixon administration did feel threatened, though, and brought out a gentleman named John O’ Neill ( not to be confused with Jhon P. O’ Neill, an FBI man who died in the 9 / 11 attacks ) who debated John Kerry in an episode of the 1971 episode of the Dick Cavett show. A Nixon aid ,Charles Colson, is quoted as saying,

"'Let's destroy this young demagogue before he becomes another Ralph Nader,'” (http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth)

Also,

"He was a thorn in our flesh. He was very articulate, a credible leader of the opposition. He forced us to create a counterfoil. We found a vet named John O'Neill and formed a group called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace. We had O'Neill meet the President, and we did everything we could do to boost his group." [1]
(http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth)

Doesn’t sound very altruistic. Sounds like dirty politics, but par for the course with that particular administration. It would seem a legacy was being passed down, but what of Mr. O’ Neill, who is he?
His family legacy shows that O'Neill's grandfather taught at the Naval Academy; his father graduated in the early '30s, flew fighters, fought at Iwo Jima, and retired an admiral; O'Neill himself, who grew up in landlocked San Antonio, Texas, was in the Naval Academy Class of 1967 (two brothers also graduated, '57 and '59).”
O’Neill spent some time on Swift Boats before taking over for Kerry, one of them was the Woodpecker. O’Neill states that the average length of duty on a Swift Boat was twelve months, but Kerry spent only four and twelve days, possibly because he requested the tour to be cut short. (http://www.nationalreview.com/rose/rose200404211228.asp)
O’Neill did well in the debate and caught Kerry’s inability to provide evidence or specific accounts of war crimes.
“What O'Neill found particularly unsettling was that here was "a guy who believed everything we did in Vietnam was a crime" but who was now "campaigning on his record and claiming to be a war hero." In short, "the only reason I'm getting involved now is because he's running for commander-in-chief of the United States."
So there it is: a regular American — O'Neill, father of two, likes hiking, playing golf, and taking an active part in his church — not content anymore to allow Kerry and his kind to keep hijacking the Vietnam War.” (http://www.nationalreview.com/rose/rose200404211228.asp)
Watching C-Span at anytime during these election days will garner people the chance to watch the actual debate. Part of the transcript is available at the S.B.V.T. webpage. But has Kerry actually lied? Has he not been deserving of his numerous medals, and has he done anything wrong beside speak out against the actions in Vietnam? Who is lying here or are is there anything besides conjecture, opinion, and politics as usual?

“The August 4 2004 editions of Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes and MSNBC's Scarborough Country dedicated coverage and airtime to the SBVT campaign. Misrepresentations and misinformation failed to be addressed. For example, claims that SBVT members served with John Kerry on his boat in Vietnam were supported by the Hannity & Colmes broadcast, which referred to the group as Kerry's "crewmates." Only one of the members of SWVT was actually a crewmate of Kerry. Other served on boats that ran missions with Kerry's boat. (The SBVT ad and official statements by the group correctly claim only that the speakers "served with" Kerry, not that they were on the same boat.) “
(http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth)
There has been quite a bit of dispute over Kerry’s medals and how he earned them, if he did, and to what degree. I’m thoroughly convinced that all of his medals, with the exception of one were awarded as they should be, those not in agreement should consult the following web page where I have acquired the following information regarding his first purple heart.
"...The following morning, John Kerry arrived at the office of Coastal Division 14 Commander Grant Hibbard to apply for a Purple Heart. Having already been informed by Schachte that Kerry's injury was self-inflicted rather than the result of hostile fire, Commander Hibbard told him to "forget it." Hibbard recently said of Kerry's minor scratch, "I’ve seen worse injuries from a rose thorn." Nevertheless, John Kerry managed to obtain his coveted Purple Heart for this incident nearly three months later after being transferred to Coastal Division 11.
...
Military regulations state that to qualify for a Purple Heart, an injury must come "from an outside force or agent," and treatment for the wound must "have been made a matter of official record." While John Kerry managed to satisfy the second criterion by insisting that an amused Dr. Letson provide an official Band-Aid, nicking himself with a fragment from his own poorly-aimed grenade fails to meet the first qualification."

FACT
(i) Kerry could NOT have gotten his Purple Heart without his Commander's recommendation. Indeed, regulations do not allow combatants to nominate themselves Purple Hearts or award it to themselves.
(ii) The severity of the injury is irrelevant to the award of a Purple Heart. The injury had to be sustained due to an outside force or in action against an enemy or hostile foreign force - or even from friendly fire. So SBV's claims are outrageous and without merit.”

http://www.eriposte.com/media/liars_inc/swiftboat.htm#1A
The bottom line on Kerry’s first purple heart is that, though his superior officers did believe him to be legitimately worthy of the merit, he probably should have passed in the first place. The rest of his medals are certainly worthy of the valour he expressed, so I will not bother illustrating them here. Furthermore, Doctor Louis Letson, who claims to have treated Kerry stated “I know John Kerry is lying about his first purple heart, because I treated him for that injury,” but “Letson was NOT the doctor who signed Kerry's sick call sheet and was not a Kerry crewmate. There is no proof he ever treated Kerry and he apparently started to recollect his memories of Vietnam just last year!”( http://www.eriposte.com/media/liars_inc/swiftboat.htm#1A)
So, there have been some falsehoods made by the SwiftVets. There have been questions about Kerry. Can we settle this somehow, or are we at an impasse? Sen. John (way too many Johns / Jhons this year! ) Mcain had these statements,
“It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me,"
“dishonest and dishonorable" (in reference to the SwiftVet’s ad.)
"I wish they hadn't done it…I don't know if they knew all the facts… think the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad."
"It reopens all the old wounds of the Vietnam War, which I spent the last 35 years trying to heal," he said.
"I deplore this kind of politics. I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam.”
This is powerful testimony from a Republican and a Veteran Prisoner of War. Be open minded, think about it, consider that the SwiftVets may be operating incorrectly. Kerry has obviously made his mistakes. He and other hundreds of thousands of Vietnam veterans have made sacrifices to secure our freedoms, but which ones will we choose, the freedom to be as ignorant as possible about the issues, or the freedoms to decide for ourselves what is correct? In some ways, freedom is an oxymoron, it creates more a burden than what it’s definition implies. I’ve barely scratched the surface on this topic, I hope that all of you will continue to dig and enrich yourselves, reveling in the breadth of knowledge at our disposal that no other country can claim.

kingbee

on Aug 18, 2004

the Kerry campaign has *not* released the records of Kerry's military service

you might want to reconsider this statement after you check this out Link

Deference

on Aug 18, 2004

you might want to reconsider this statement after you check this out

Part of the argument is that Kerry has not released his FULL military records, such as those pertaining to his physical fitness qualifications. Wank, wank. I'm certain that he has and this is just a corner for the SwiftVets to catch upon to allow them to claim that he hasn't been fully open with his records.

messybuu

on Aug 18, 2004

Don't you think that being confident that he has released his full military records or that the RNC is funding SwiftVets or etc. aren't a convincing argument?

Deference

on Aug 18, 2004

Don't you think that being confident that he has released his full military records or that the RNC is funding SwiftVets or etc. aren't a convincing argument?

A convincing argument for what? (you'll have to excuse me, sometimes I can be a bit dense)

adnauseam

on Aug 18, 2004

I think Gideon has a point: Kerry did serve and if we were'nt sitting next to him, how do we know how well or how badly he did? The Swiftboat guys seem to have a hidden agenda.

terpfan1980

on Aug 18, 2004

Reply #38 By: kingbee - 8/18/2004 12:12:21 AM
the Kerry campaign has *not* released the records of Kerry's military service

you might want to reconsider this statement after you check this out Link

And you might want to reconsider that also...

Check out this link:
Link

Some portion of the article there:

Members of the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, veterans who served duty similar to Mr. Kerry on PCF (Patrol Craft Fast) boats, have written a book and sponsored a television advertisement challenging Mr. Kerry's version of events during his four months in combat.
The group wants Mr. Kerry to sign Standard Form 180, which it says would facilitate the release of records and help sort out which version of events is accurate.
John O'Neill, the man who took over Mr. Kerry's command in Vietnam and a co-author of the new book "Unfit for Command," said such records as after-action, hostile fire and casualty reports would show whether Mr. Kerry deserved one of his Purple Hearts.
Mr. Meehan, acknowledging that Mr. Kerry has not signed Standard Form 180, said the records have all been laid out nonetheless.
"Has he signed the form?" he asked. "No. What he's signed is his release of privacy to the United States Navy to turn over his entire military record and he's posted it up on his Web site, so the whole world can see his entire military record."
Mr. O'Neill, though, said the campaign has acknowledged in the past it that has withheld some records.
"That's a lie or a carefully calculated set of words," he said yesterday in a telephone interview. "He continues to conceal, for example, his medical records. He's provided virtually none of his medical records, only an interpretation of them by a friendly physician."

To be "fair and balanced", I'll add the following, from the same article:

MoveOn.org, a liberal advocacy group, is running a television commercial calling on Mr. Bush to ask the Swift Boat veterans to pull the commercial. MoveOn.org accuses Mr. Bush of shirking duty.
"George Bush used his father to get into the National Guard, and when the chips were down, went missing," the commercial says. "Now he's allowing false advertising that attacks John Kerry."
At yesterday's press conference, Mr. Kerry's surrogates echoed this charge.
"Did he [Mr. Bush] sign his 180? Can we see his records?" asked Del Sandusky, one of Mr. Kerry's crewmates.

The linked article is well worth reading entirely.

Deference, you'll have to excuse me for continuing to be Dense also, but your case laid out above is still far from bullet-proof.

There are questions on both sides, and personally I'll still be glad to have reporters working the issues to bring out the facts from either side.

kingbee

on Aug 18, 2004

had you actually checked the link i furnished, you would have noticed the link leading here. Link browse the declassified spot (after-action) reports and tell me what's missing.

you do realize that john oneill has been quoted in the past as saying he was on kerry's boat with kerry?

Deference

on Aug 18, 2004

Deference, you'll have to excuse me for continuing to be Dense also, but your case laid out above is still far from bullet-proof.

Excuse me, I was asking an honest question of Messy Buu, I was requesting what the specific point he / she was getting at.

As for the piece above being "bulletproof". It was not an attempt to prove anything. What exactly is your argument? That Kerry didn't earn his medals? I've answered that, and it is my opinion that with the first purple heart he nearly achieved the title of "medal hunter" but that it is clear that he was a war hero, did commit acts of valour, and legally earned all of his medals. Is your argument that Kerry lied about atrocities in Vietnam? I addressed that. He was unable to prove his specific allegations. He has not been proven to be lying, either. Is it that Kerry acted dishonourably? The SwiftVets say so and seem to genuinely believe that to be true, but, in truth, he only came home and bad-mouthed a war 59,000 Vietnam vets committed suicide over. So what is your itch? Is it Kerry's full military records? You won't rest till you see his physical qualifications? If he was behind a push-up or sit-up from meeting the standards will you leap on that and claim his full tour of duty to be without merit? If that is the one thing you are clinging to, let me offer some advice - let go. You'll find yourself much less upset. Why not admit that Kerry is simply not your taste. The guy obviously hasn't done anything heinous.

On the issue of Mr. O' Neill, I think the guy (and the SwiftVets) are straight arrows, at least looking at their records and lives, so it puzzles me that they would sink beneath themselves to go out of their way to mislead the public with such statements as,"I served with John Kerry," when they weren't members of his crew, when they deliberately attempt to push people in to thinking that they were much closer to him when, in fact, they weren't. The SwiftVets are entitled to their opinion of Kerry, they think he did wrong by coming back and speaking out against the war, if that was all it entailed, I wouldn't have a problem with the group. Their implications, however, give the American public the message that Kerry has done something insidious and wrong, and that isn't correct, is it?

To finish, the objective of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: More Context More Truth was to expose the motives and intents of the individuals involved. I feel that providing background and information of Mr. O' Neill and Mr. Kerry helps flesh out people's ideas of who these paper figures are so that we might better have a grasp of who they are and how much of a pawn Mr. O'Neill is and how much of an idealist and supercillious person Kerry can be. Understanding the people and situations without their natural context leads to an abstract and twisted view of the real facts, which is all people are given these days. You illustrate this brilliantly by providing a link to one source instead of doing a *little* digging yourself and focusing on one abstract piece of the puzzle instead of attempting to link them together to see the bigger, more accurate picture. Best wishes on your further endeavours.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!