On "Dittoheads" as well...I think the term has also been taken to mean that one can know what a Rush fan thinks simply by listening to Rush. The fans pretty much just mouth things that Rush has said earlier that day. Also, with few execeptions, his phone callers are all just repeating his words back to him...thus "Ditto, ditto." I heard Rush was making fun of this idea of his fans by embracing the criticism and running with it. That was what I heard a looong time ago, though.
posted
Ron (a Republican in Democrat clothing?? ), I am curious...the crew mates of Kerry are "wined and dined" and "Coached" with their support but you don't seem to make the claim for the "253 decorated vets." Do you think those 253 independently got together just recently and decided to put an ad together? Were they coached at all? Or were they just speaking their 30+ year old memories of "first hand accounts" of seeing his boat in a group of other boats because it suddenly came to them...those medals are wrong! He should never have gotten them! You are clearly not saying this out of concern for the Democratic ticket. While I agree that Kerry's crewmates that support him are surely enjoying the attention and dinners, interviews, etc. but to think that these 253 vets suddenly came to their senses after 30 years and decided to protest Kerry's medals and actions...well, that seems a bit naive and partisan on your part. Why is one group only partisan politics and the other noble and just? Your Republican fringe is showing.
posted
Considering the Republican party seems to be doing everything it can to distance themselves from this dreck I wouldn't call it his Republican fringe showing. More his I Don't Like Kerry fringe. And by fringe I mean official stance.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The quotes you provide are just a spin production of the Democratic Party. You still are not going to diminish, with such tactics, the weight of 253 decorated veterans bearing public testimony of the first hand eyewitness accounts,"
Ron- Did you fail to notice that many of the accounts AREN'T eyewitness, but claim to be? Kwea is pointing out that many of these vets make claims they self-admittedly have no basis to be able to make.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: As I have pointed out before, and as any reasonable person would admit, people, especially officers with command training, who were in boats in the same group that conducted missions with Kerry's boat, were actually in a better position to see the whole picture of what was going on that someone on Kerry's boat, and fellow officers were better qualified to evaluate Kerry's conduct as a commander.
I guess you didn't get what I was saying about that, because I HAVE commented on it several times. That's OK, there was a lot of info there...
I guess I am not a reasonable person, because I don't see any proof at all that they were in any situation that would provide them with a "better" look at what happened than the people in his boat. Even the people who were in the boat sometimes had conflicting reports on what happened. Not because they were lying, ad has been implied repeatedly, but because even in the same boat people see thing differently. In action, the commanders of the boats have enough to worry about without paying absolute attention to someone else boat. Under fire things get a bit hairy.
Even in peacetime, I wouldn't give their opinions much weight, not after they admitted their bias against him.
Unless they were involved in the actual missions under question, and can prove they were within 20 feet or so, they simply don't matter. Thousands of soldiers "served" with Kerry, but only 250 (+/-) signed this ad...and quite a few of the ones who did were outraged when the ads were aired.....check out the CBS site for further detains...it's in the links I posted earlier....
What I find interesting is that you discount all their earlier statements about Kerry...you know, the statements that occurred much closer to the events that the statements they are now making. Also, those original statements were made BEFORE Kerry spoke before Congress.
Almost every single Vet in the Swift-Vet ad mentioned their anger and disgust toward Kerry resulting from his testimony , but you won't admit that that very anger and feeling of betrayal might have cause them to change their opinions of him after the fact !
I can see that you have made up your mind, so I probably won't bother to reply again.
There are enough issues to consider without bothering with this tripe any further than I have already.
Good or bad, at least Kerry has a record to consider. While I feel that that is important, it isn't the most important thing I will consider on election day. I was in the service, and received an Honorable discharge, but I would be a horrible President.
posted
I have been away for a bit, but thought I should comment here.
First - the Swift Boat Veterans is registered for IRS purposes as a 527 committee. This is a political committe and has little to do with a veterans organization. Even worse, it is that special designation we have from campaign finance law that allows tons of money to go to Anti campaigns (Lord help us if we did something like tout someone's virtues instead of attacking their opponent's flaws).
Second - their initial funding amounted to around $175,000 (you didn't think car washes could drum up enough cash to run swing state ads did you?). The money came from 5 sources. Senator McCain is upset becaus 4 of the 5 were responsible for a similar episode in the 2000 primary that publically spread untruths about his service record. Sen. McCain is much like me - this doesn't appear to be consequence.
Third - I have read a few posts of folks supporting the group that have yet to acknowledge that there are explicit untruths in comments from the group regarding Kerry's actions in getting some metals and rewards. Folks, this information is not contestable in any intelligent way - any banter that is so reckless with the facts becomes white noise.
Fourth - The arthur of "Unfit" (O'Neill) is a long time anti-Kerry player (as early as 1972) and is most upset with Kerry for his stance on the war after his return state side. His book was, at least partially, funded by the same noted above. No big issue here - just providing data.
Fifth - Retired Admiral Hoffman (a leader of the group) only became interested in the Anti campaign after he was cast in a less than glowing light in a Kerry biography.
So here is my deal - While these folks can band together and express their opinion of Kerry and be very upset with his Veterans against the Vietnam War association, they are not granted a license to lie. I do not think that the 253 are lying. I do KNOW that a small number of folks either in the group or sponsored by the group have lied in a blatant attempt to discredit. Unfortunately that discredits anything that comes from that group until such time as they acknowledge same and appropriately take action against the responsble members.
Pretty darn simple when you run the logic - at least to this farm boy...
Posts: 46 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: As I have pointed out before, and as any reasonable person would admit, people, especially officers with command training, who were in boats in the same group that conducted missions with Kerry's boat, were actually in a better position to see the whole picture of what was going on that someone on Kerry's boat, and fellow officers were better qualified to evaluate Kerry's conduct as a commander.
This statement boggles my mind. Apparently I am not a reasonable person either.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
(To me, the most important part of this story is not what Kerry is charging, but the discrepancy between the records regarding Thurlow's Bronze Star and what he is claiming today. I'm excerpting that part of the article, which is from CNN.)
quote:Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is registered as an independent "527" committee, named for a section of the federal tax code. Its contributors include several major Republican donors, and Kerry's campaign said none of the men in the campaign commercial served in the same boat as the Democratic nominee.
Group member Larry Thurlow, who appears in one ad, told CNN earlier this month that Kerry's boat fled from a mine blast that damaged another vessel in a March 1969 incident for which Kerry won the Bronze Star.
"Our boats immediately put automatic weapons fire onto the left bank in case there was an ambush in conjunction with the mine," said Thurlow, a fellow Navy officer in a nearby boat at the time. "It soon became apparent there was no ambush."
But Rassmann, the man whose rescue from the water in that incident resulted in Kerry being decorated, said August 5 that Thurlow "has a very unusual recollection of events."
"I was receiving fire in the water every time I came up for air," said Rassmann, who has campaigned for Kerry since January.
Thurlow's account differs not only from those of Kerry and Rassmann but also that given in the Navy's letter awarding Kerry the Bronze Star. The letter finds Kerry exhibited "great personal courage under fire" in rescuing Rassmann, an Army officer who recommended Kerry for the decoration.
Rassmann said he agreed with another Vietnam veteran, Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, who has called the ad in which Thurlow appears "dishonest and dishonorable."
The Washington Post reported Thursday that Thurlow's military records, which the newspaper obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, show that he also came under fire during the same skirmish as Kerry and received the Bronze Star.
But Thurlow told the Post he would consider his own medal "fraudulent" if coming under enemy fire was the basis for it.
quote: "When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry." Larry Thurlow was NOT a crewmate of John Kerry's
Thurlow's Statements Do Not Fit With History - Says Navy is Lying?
On the day Kerry pulled Rassmann from the water, "Larry Thurlow had maneuvered his PCF-51 over by this time and he hopped aboard PCF-3 to offer assistance. The boat was in shambles but they were still shooting too hard to assess any damage" "BOATS RECEIVED HEAVY A/W [automatic weapons] & S/A [small arms] FROM BOTH BANKS…ALL BOATS AND MSF RETURNED FIRE…PCF-94 [Kerry's boat] PICKED UP MSF ADVISOR WHO WENT OVERBOARD…PCF-94 TOWED PCF-3." [Tour of Duty, Brinkley, 2004, p. 314; U.S. Navy After Action Report: http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/SpotReports_March1969.pdf]
Larry Thurlow Even Praised Kerry Despite Coming From Different Backgrounds: "John was sharp as a tack... But he came from a background most of us couldn't understand." [Tour of Duty, Brinkley, 2004 p. 300]
(There's a lot more about the other claims, but it's not my place to swamp this thread. I thought I'd post the "Thurlow" reference, since it seems to be current)
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have said before that the Democrats' initial policy of ignoring and dismissing the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth would not work. Now they seem to realize that, and have changed tactics, going into a very strident, hysterical attack mode, decrying how the group is just smearing a true war hero, and saying the Bush Campaign is behind it because some people who contributed to the Bush Campaign also contributed money to enable SBVFT to be able to afford to put their ad on the airwaves. But they are not saying anything new, or anything of substance, just yelling louder.
In fact, on MSNBC this afternoon, I heard Clelland get so carried away he referred to Kerry still carrying shrapnel in his thigh from his purple heart injuries in Vietnam. (Is the rice still there, too?) Guess what, that can be checked with a simple X-Ray. Or even maybe the metal detector at an airport. If Kerry ever did get shrapnel deeply embedded in his thigh or butt, then what prevented it from being removed? It wouldn't take brain surgery, would it?
For a moment Democrats thought that Thurlow had been caught in a contradiction, quoting his citation for a bronze star that he received at the same time as Kerry's, where the citation account refers to hostile enemy fire from shore. But Thurlow has come right back with a public statement that he did not write that report or file any paperwork, the only person who filed any paperwork was Kerry, and so the statements in the citation were written by Kerry himself. When he learned he was receiving the bronze star several months later, Thurlow said he thought it was simply because he pulled men out of the water after they had been blown into the water when a mine blew up under their swift boat.
Compare that to all the different contradictory attempts by Kerry to explain away his lie about being in Cambodia on Christmas of 1968, ordered to be there by Nixon illegally. Not only has this account been contradicted by other crewmembers, it has been pointed out that Nixon had not taken office yet in December of 1968.
Compare that to the claim by Rassmann he was in the same boat with Kerry, and the claim by other Swift Boat commanders that Rassmann fell out of Kerry's boat when Kerry made a hard turn in his panic attempt to flee the scene, and to Kerry's own claim that Rassmann was in the boat behind him and was blown into the water by the mine.
I mean, come on, get real--who has more credibility and weight of evidence, more than 250 veterans, many of them decorated, who were in Kerry's unit--who all tell a consistent story, or the at most 14 men who keep contradicting each other that the Democratic Party has gotten to go around on display in support of Kerry's claim to be a war hero?
Then, of course, Democrats also try to shift attention to Bush's record of military service in the Air National Guard, as if Bush has ever made an issue of his military service being the basis for his candidacy like Kerry has.
I predict that the present efforts by Democrats and Kerry himself to shout down the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth will also fail, and lead many people to respond, "Me thinks thou protesteth too much." Such tactics just make Kerry look guiltier and guilter.
All that is left is for Kerry to release all of his military and medical records, which he has so far refused to do. All he has released so far is just a few selected records, mainly consisting of forms he himself filled out, and statements he himself wrote. But maybe Kerry cannot afford to allow the release of all the rest of his records. Maybe the proof that he has lied could be deduced all too easily from them.
Democrats were dumb, dumb, dumb to pick a man with such skeletons in his closet for a presidential candidate. Ted Kennedy had the good sense never to run for president after Chappaquidick, but that lesson was forgotten by those who chose Kerry to be the Democrats' standard-bearer.
SBVFT are not going to go away, ever. The first-hand, eye-witness testimony of 95% of those who served in Kerry's unit cannot be dismissed or shouted down.
The Bush campaign still could run that video clip of Kerry telling an interviewer on the air that he committed war atrocities in Vietnam, and ask, "If Kerry was telling the truth, then was he really a war hero? If he was not telling the truth, then why should we believe anything else he says, then or now?"
[ August 19, 2004, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron Lambert, you already know that Thurlow's claims have been contradicted by his own accounts recently, stemming from the release of data regarding the incident via the Freedom of Information Act, right? In other words, his book and the interviews he give now are a change of story from the reports given back then, when it happened.
Are you seriously trying to say that time has cleared his memory and given him the right version? Wouldn't that be contradictory to what 30 or more years does to everyone else?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suggest you read his letter. He said that he did not write those words, the only person who filed any report that day was Kerry, and so the words used in the citation came from Kerry. Thurlow reaffirmed that there was no enemy fire. His veracity is also testified to by others.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events.
In newspaper interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry's claim that the Massachusetts Democrat's boat came under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star for his actions that day.
But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."
(My other IE window stalle dtrying to load the PDF of Thurlows commendation. I've got to post this now, so that I can close IE)
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I suggest you read his letter. He said that he did not write those words"
As senior officer, he either wrote them, or signed them: ie took full responsiblity for the wording. In accepting the decoration, he fully endorsed the words once again.
So Thurlow either lied to superior officers back then, or he is lying to the press now. Either way he is a doubly proven perjuror.
posted
"suggest you read his letter. He said that he did not write those words, the only person who filed any report that day was Kerry, and so the words used in the citation came from Kerry."
Wrong! The award recomendation was written by George Elliott, the Award Citation by Admiral Zumwalt (well, probably zumwalt's staff).
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When one recieves a Bronze star there is a document detailing the courageous action. Most often there is a public presentation with the document being read aloud.
Mr. Thurlow's account of how he tought the medal was for something other than the proclamation of heroism is either dishonest or extraordinarily (read - unbelievably) niave. Either explanation makes his recollection of events suspect and to be placed on the discard pile.
Give the 250 folks thing a break - the vast majority are upset about the Veterans against the Vietnam war - a very legitimate 'I don't like this person because' situation. Few of the 250 are discrediting Kerry's record - so leave those folks out of the conversation...
Posts: 46 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is a statement from another eyewitness who corroborates Larry Thurlow's account of events, and indicates that Thurlow deserved his bronze star even though there was no enemy fire from shore:
quote:Statement by Navy Veteran Van Odell, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
in Rebuttal to Michael Dobbs, Washington Post, August 19, 2004
A courageous, soft spoken man of the Midwest, Larry Thurlow has a heart bigger than the great plains and a commitment to truth and honesty that is boundless. He is under attack, because John Kerry is feeling the heat of truth at the hands of this honest man and others like him.
The Kerry Campaign is attacking the truthfulness of this man and the Bronze Star he so richly deserves for his actions on March 13, 1969. I was there. I saw what happened.
The mine's detonation lifted PCF-3 completely out of the water just yards ahead of me. All boats commenced suppression fire in case enemy small arms fire ensued. None did.
All boats came to the aid of PCF-3, except one: John Kerry's boat. Kerry fled.
Larry Thurlow piloted his boat straight toward the mine-damaged PCF-3 from which thick, black smoke billowed. He jumped aboard and personally led damage control operations that saved the boat and rescue operations that saved the lives of badly wounded men. Larry's leadership was in the highest traditions of the naval service. His leadership allowed the other men and boats of the mission to exit the river safely. This single act of meritorious service -- the chief requirement of the Bronze Star -- should be honored, not ridiculed, by the Kerry campaign and its allies in the mainstream media.
To reiterate, only one enemy weapon was deployed that day -- the command-detonated submerged mine that disabled PCF-3. Larry Thurlow's citation contained references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire," because that was the language chosen by John Kerry who penned the spot report on the action that day. There was no "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" received that day. John Kerry's report was fiction -- a hoax on the entire chain of command. Larry Thurlow's heroism and meritorious service, however, is real.
To me Larry is one of the heroes of our country. He is a man who served his country when called and who returned home to be a productive citizen. Larry and men like him are the strong backbone of our society. I am proud to have served with him.
The above letter is posted on the swiftvets website, at http://www.swiftvets.com/ -- just scan down past Thurlow's letter.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interestingly, Thurlow's war record was recently released, there is a discussion of it in yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle. Thurlow's war record contains direct contraditions to the statements he has made recently.
quote:Last month, Thurlow swore in an affidavit that Kerry was "not under fire" when he fished Lt. James Rassmann out of the water. He described Kerry's Bronze Star citation, which says that all units involved came under "small arms and automatic weapons fire," as "totally fabricated."
"I never heard a shot," Thurlow said in his affidavit, which was released by Swift Boats Veterans for Truth.
A document recommending Thurlow for the Bronze Star noted that all his actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire which LTJG THURLOW completely ignored in providing immediate assistance" to the disabled boat and its crew. The citation states that all other units in the flotilla also came under fire.
So was Thurlow lying then or now. If he was lying then, why hasn't he volunteered to turn in his own Bronze Star.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, is it really asking too much for you to read Thurlow's rebuttal? And check the corroborating eye-witness testimony of Van Odell, which immediately follows Thurlow's letter on the swiftvets home page: Thurlow's rebuttal and corroboration from Odell
Unlike Kerry, who fled the scene, and then returned to help fish one man out of the water, Thurlow jumped into the stricken boat, directed damage control, saved the boat from sinking, and helped severely injured men. This was meritorious service worthy of a bronze star regardless of whether there was enemy fire.
Since those who wrote the citation only had one account to go on of what happened--Kerry's fraudulent account--that is how the false claim that there was enemy fire got into the report.
[ August 20, 2004, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, Is it too much too ask for you to read Kerry's rebuttal and the statements made in the citations made to both men.
Thurlow's recent statements contradict the statements he made in his official wartime record. These weren't general statements -- they were his statements. Thurlow's claims that Kerry fled contradict those of others at the scene (including the man who Kerry's saved) and the all the official accounts of the event.
I suspect that when people are underfire, there is alot of confusion. In most disasters there are many contradicting reports of what happened. What's more, studies of memory have proven that peoples memories of an event change with time. Kerry made alot of these guys angry when he came out against the Vietnam War after his return. That alone has certainly colored their memory of his actions during the war. After having looked at the accusations, the war records, the citiation, that the rebuttals given by both sides. I have to conclude that Thurlow's recent statements are not credible.
Why do you conclude that they are?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, Kerry has not issued any rebuttal. Denial and calling names is not rebuttal.
The fact is, recent polls show that not only have 50% of all Americans seen the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth ads (despite the fact they only spent $500,000 to run them in three battleground states), but also the ads are having a significant impact on veterans, who were evenly split 46%-46% between Kerry and Bush after the Democratic National Convention, but now that the SBVFT ads have been running, veterans apparently have become aware of what the real issues are involving Kerry's past, and now there is a huge difference among veterans, with 55% supporting Bush, and only 37% supporting Kerry. This demographic by itself is probably what has driven the Democrats to such fevered desperation.
Democrats have tried to ignore and dismiss the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, and it did not work. Democrats have tried to shout them down and denounce them and call them names and decry them for "telling lies" about their candidate who is running as a "war hero." But that did not work either. The testimony of 95% of the veterans who served in Kerry's unit in Vietnam cannot be dismissed or shouted down or discredited. Now Democrats are trying to find some way to impose censorship on the SBVFT and force their ads to be banned from the airwaves.
I notice that Judicial Watch has just filed a formal request with the Navy and Department of Defense for official investigations of Kerry's service in Vietnam, particularly in the awarding of medals; and involving his antiwar activities after returning from Vietnam, such as his meetings with representatives of the North Vietnamese while still in the Naval Reserve where he came back parroting their ridiculous demand for "reparations."
Judicial Watch says it "was established in 1994 to serve as an ethical and legal 'watchdog' over our government, legal, and judicial systems to promote a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life." Judicial Watch also claims to be "a non-partisan, non-profit foundation...to...root out corruption in our government and to make sure offenders are brought to justice."
posted
"veterans apparently have become aware of what the real issues are involving Kerry's past,"
To be fair, you should phrase this as "have become aware of what some people say the real issues are..." Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chicago Tribune editor speaks up in support of Kerry's war record and writes that criticism of Kerry "impugns others who are not in the public eye."
quote:William Rood, an editor at the Chicago Tribune, writes in Sunday's editions: "Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the accounts of what happened [in 1969] were overblown. The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us."
Like Kerry, Rood was a lieutenant junior grade and skipper of one of the three boats ambushed twice while on patrol February 28, 1969. Kerry was awarded the Silver Star, the Navy's third-highest combat decoration, for his aggressive response to the ambushes.
Rood won a Bronze Star for his actions in the same clash, and writes that criticism of Kerry " impugns others who are not in the public eye."
He says, "It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there."
***
O'Neill's book said Kerry shot a fleeing Vietnamese teenager to win the award.
Rood disputes that, saying he checked with another sailor on that mission and they agreed that "he was a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the [Viet Cong] usually wore."
And more untruths from the Bush campaign: <edited to add: this is actually an ad from the swiftvets, which, as Dag pointed out, has not been proven to be linked directly to the Bush campaign. I apologize for saying this is from the Bush campaign. I believe all of this is from Bush, but I have no proof and should not have written such a misleading sentence.>
quote:The latest ad, a 30-second spot released Friday, uses segments from Kerry's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971. In the ad, Kerry says, "They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads," "randomly shot at civilians," and "razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Kahn."
The ad does not include Kerry's preface, in which he said he is reporting what others said at a Vietnam veterans conference. Instead, a swift boat group member refers to the statements as "accusations" Kerry made against Vietnam veterans.
Doesn't this show a close link between the Bush campaign and the swiftboat vets?
quote:A volunteer adviser has quit President Bush's re-election campaign after appearing in a veterans group's television commercial blasting Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's involvement in the Vietnam-era antiwar movement.
A Bush campaign statement said it did not know that retired Air Force Col. Ken Cordier had appeared in an ad by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The Kerry campaign has accused the group of illegally working with the Bush campaign.
[ August 23, 2004, 07:35 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it doesn't. Trust me, if they were coordinating the guy wouldn't have shown up in the commercials, or he would have already quit the Bush campaign.
And the ad you mention with Kerrey's testimony is from swiftvets, not the Bush campaign, right?
posted
I disagree, it does to me, and to may others.
I don't know that Bush's campaign is closly related to the SwiftVets now, but I believe that his campaign started the ball rolling, or he would have spoken out against it by now.
Getting someone to do your dirty work has a long history within politics....and not just in this country, or just for Republicans.
posted
So you just think this masterful team of political subterfuge forgot that they were employing someone in the ad, and didn't think this would be noticed?
posted
Beren, if you think Rood' story is so super-credible, then explain why he says Kerry dove into the water to rescue Rassmann, when everyone else--including Kerry--says he just reached down into the water to pull up Rassmann. So how reliable does that make Rood's testimony, really?
There were many crewmembers on the scene who witnessed what happened besides the commanders of the swift boats, and the majority tell a consistent story that there was no enemy fire from shore, and that Kerry fled the scene at first, and did not return until it was clear there was no return fire to the other swift boats' initial suppression fire.
And there are other commanders of swift boats who were present to witness Kerry's behavior on other occasions, on other joint missions. 16 of the 19 still alive are members of SBVFT. Two have declined to make a public statement. Only one has come out in favor of Kerry--Rood. Naturally, Kerry supporters desperate to grasp at straws wish to annoint Rood as their hero, and demand that only he be listened to.
The online Detroit News is running an informal poll which so far indicates that 50.5% of respondents believe Kerry's version of the truth about his service record, and 49.5% of respondents believe the version of the truth about Kerry's service record being stated by Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. The Detroit News serves the largest market in Michigan, a key battleground state, so here is yet another indication of how big a problem the SBVFT testimony is being to the Kerry campaign.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, it appears that I confused Rood with Langhofer. There are so many witnesses and different incidents being discussed in this debate, it can be confusing.
But here is this news item about Rood being contradicted by another crewmate who was aboard Kerry's own boat:
quote: But unmentioned in coverage of Rood's story so far is one salient fact: His account is sharply contradicted by one of Kerry's own crewmates, who complained eight years ago that Kerry took credit for bravery he didn't deserve – in an action that earned him the Silver Star. .... Unmentioned by Rood in his Chicago Tribune report is the account of Tom Bellodeau, who, unlike Rood, was actually aboard Kerry's boat when the VC in question leveled his grenade launcher at them.
"You know, I shot that guy," Bellodeau told the Boston Globe during a 1996 interview, correcting an earlier Globe report that echoed Kerry's claim that he alone had neutralized the enemy ambusher.
"He jumped up, he looked right at me, I looked at him," Bellodeau continued. "You could tell he was trying to decide whether to shoot or not. I expected the guy on Kerry's boat with the twin 50s to blast him, but he couldn't depress the guns far enough. We were up on the bank."
Only after the enemy soldier was wounded, said Bellodeau, did Kerry leap from the boat onto the beach and pursue him around the back of a nearby hut, where the would-be president finished him off.
Bellodeau is dead now. According to the article, Kerry spoke at his funeral, and still did not mention the role Bellodeau played in shooting the VC who had the RPG launcher first before Kerry jumped out of the boat and chased him.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: So you just think this masterful team of political subterfuge forgot that they were employing someone in the ad, and didn't think this would be noticed?
Dagonee
No, but I do think they were involved in the startup of SBV, and haven't come clean on if they approve of the ads.
Ron, MI doen't matter, really, even though I am fond of it. Kerry can win without it, easily.
You keep claiming all these numbers of Vets who claim to have seen Kerry so various thing, but none of them can get their story right too. Why is it that you are more likely to believe people who were never near the boat in the first place, and who have been liying for yearsd about their own medals and honors, but when the same thing happens to Kerry supporters you attempt to pounce on their inconsistancies?
Could it be that you are against Kerry and the Democratic ticket?
posted
BTW, the only person who saw Bellieau hit him was......himself.
But he is in the switvet ad, so he MUST be an honest and trustworth guy.
He's dead, so he couldn't have lied...
And Rood DOES say, despite the claims otherwise, that the guy might have been wounded. The man who "claimed" to have shot the guy to wound him was on another boat...so how would Kerry have know what had happened?
And there is no one who was able to say if the enemy was woulded or not.
But eveyone agrees that Kerry chased him down alone.
At least a brick wall has a chance of falling down....
Might I point out the obvious? That Kerry served in Vietnam, Bush didn't. They (The Republicans) need to drop that issue and focus on something more important.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There're certainly plenty of liars who criticize bush, however I think that most of the really prominent groups which criticize him have been on the whole rather honest. Unless you'd care to cite some counterexamples . . .?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, thanks for not taking me to task for my mistake. It was a bad one and I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt that it was an honest one.
quote:Bellodeau is dead now. According to the article, Kerry spoke at his funeral, and still did not mention the role Bellodeau played in shooting the VC who had the RPG launcher first before Kerry jumped out of the boat and chased him.
But Bellodeau also said:
quote:"This man was not lying on the ground. This man was more than capable of destroying that boat and everybody on it. Senator Kerry did not give him that opportunity," Belodeau said. He also said that he was not sure whether or not he had hit the attacker.Source: National Review
You do make a great point about SBVFT testimony being a huge problem for Kerry's campaign. This is the most active Kerry thread on Hatrack, and it is not about Iraq or the economy.
This is a perfect win-win for Bush. Kerry cannot ignore this attack since he is running on the war hero ticket; but even if Kerry win this debate Bush can just throw up his hands and say, "That's nice, I, for one, never questioned your war record."
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is the latest result of the on-going Detroit News online poll:
quote: Whose version of the truth about John Kerry's service in Vietnam do you tend to believe?
John Kerry's 49.90%
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's 50.10%
Yesterday, it was 50.5 in favor of Kerry's version vs. 49.5% in favor of SBVFT's version. It is now even closer to even, but slightly in favor of SBVFT's version. Looks like SBVFT is still winning more and more people to its view, as more and more people see the ads.
The online Detroit News serves the largest market in Michigan, which is one of the three largest battleground states.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what? 70% believed Cheney's repeated lies that Saddam was directly involved with AlQaeda and 9/11 . Lessee, when Limbaugh fed ya the words, weren't you the one whining about Clinton basing his actions on polls??? Shift to the present and surprise, surprise, surprise cuz Limbaugh's feeding you the words, you suddenly want Kerry to act based on polls.
posted
Actually, I have never listened to a single broadcast of Limbaugh's in my life.
And I think that the one who is a "self-proven liar" is Kerry, over and over.
God bless the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth! By mounting their determined and courageous challenge against Kerry, they are provoking him to reveal his true colors, as he personally orders his campaign lawyers (against the advice of his own staff) to write threatening letters to TV station managers if they run the SBVFT ads, and even to the publishers of John O'Neill's book, Unfit For Command demanding that they stop printing the book.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
So far, Kerry hasn't been exposed as having lied a SINGLE TIME!
All the people who actually saw the action in question in the AD, back Kerry's story.
The official navy records, back Kerry's story.
The people who are "courageously" mounting a smear campaign against kerry? Most of them decided sometime between 1996 and now that Kerry is scum, when prior to that time, they spoke, publicly, highly of Kerry.
Kerry MAY be mistaken about where he was on christmas eve in 1968, but being mistaken about where you are, is not lying. In order to prove that he lied in 1986, you need to show that his MEMORY of being in cambodia in 1968 is wrong. Showing that he wasn't actually there in no way establishes that he was lying, it only establishes that his memory is wrong... and so far, no one has actually shown that he wasn't in cambodia in 1968. Since the people with access to the charts on his boat, say they were "on or near" the cambodian border, its very possible he WAS in cambodia.
Kerry's lied?
Show me ONE lie. You can't. You can show where the SBVFT SAY Kerry has lied, but to then claim that Kerry has lied is deceitful, since that claim rests on having knowledge about Kerry's memories, and believing unsubstantiated accounts over documented accounts, when the documented accounts are made by people who have not changed their story within the last 8 years, and were made closer to the time of action.
An interesting side bar to this: Claiming Kerry is a liar, means that the Right is willing to play by the rules where Bush is a DOCUMENTED liar. He has made claims that do not conform to reality. Kerry has made claims that MAY not conform to reality. Therefore, Bush is a bigger liar then Kerry, by the criteria established by the Right for claiming a president or presidential candidate is lying.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
ooo... The KerryCampaign is doin' the same thing as the BushCampaign has long been doing to MoveOn. Mean nasty little Democrats, imagine adapting Republican tactics. tut tut tut
Course'n the Democrats have a proven link, Ken Cordier between the so-called independent SwiftBoaters and the BushCampaign: which is illegal under campaign laws. And the Republicans use nothing but lies (and the threat of the Republican-controlled FederalCommunicationsCommission) in their attempt to prevent broadcast stations from airing MoveOn's advertisements.
But that's okay. After all, Republicans are s'poseta lie about everything. Only Democrats hafta be so honest that even liars can't rearrange their words.
posted
"Actually, I have never listened to a single broadcast of Limbaugh's in my life."
Ron, in a previous exchange regarding whether you believed Rush Limbaugh to be rude or not, I recall that you mentioned that you had never heard a show in which he was, and had personally seen the show in which the infamous "Chelsea: White House dog" slur made it on the air. I'm assuming that watching Limbaugh's broadcast and listening to his broadcast are two different things?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, thanks for not taking me to task for my mistake. It was a bad one and I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt that it was an honest one.
You’ve never given me any reason to doubt your good intentions, even if you are voting for Kerrey.
quote: So what? 70% believed Cheney's repeated lies that Saddam was directly involved with AlQaeda and 9/11.
FOR THE LAST FREAKIN’ TIME, CHENEY NEVER SAID IRAQ WAS INVOLVED IN 9/11. Show the attributed quote or please sing a different tune.
quote: No, in fact they haven't. Please feel free to show me some of these lies. Or is innuendo enough?
posted
Well Dag, I'm leaning towards Kerry, but it is more of an anti-Bush than a pro-Kerry vote. In other words, I can still be persuaded.
Bush has handled this whole thing beautifully. He condmned the ads today and I think most swing voters would not blame Bush for the Swiftvet commercials:
quote: Bush criticized the groups' first commercial and all other outside group attack ads - many of which have targeted his own re-election.
"That means that ad, every other ad," he said. "I can't be more plain about it. And I wish - I hope my opponent joins me in saying - condemning these activities of the 527s. It's - I think they're bad for the system. That's why I signed the bill, McCain-Feingold."
Bush's comment about 527s was a reference to independent groups that raise money in unlimited amounts. The so-called McCain-Feingold bill, a campaign finance overhaul bill which Bush signed reluctantly earlier in his term, banned the political parties from raising such funds.
While Kerry and Democrats have demanded that Bush condemn the attack on his war record, the president has been targeted by an estimated $60 million in commercials by outside groups since the campaign began.
Kerry has declined to call for an end to those ads, which helped him at a time when he did not have the funds to compete with Bush' campaign advertising budget. Source: AP News
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Kwea.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
), I am curious...the crew mates of Kerry are "wined and dined" and "Coached" with their support but you don't seem to make the claim for the "253 decorated vets." Do you think those 253 independently got together just recently and decided to put an ad together? Were they coached at all? Or were they just speaking their 30+ year old memories of "first hand accounts" of seeing his boat in a group of other boats because it suddenly came to them...those medals are wrong! He should never have gotten them! You are clearly not saying this out of concern for the Democratic ticket. While I agree that Kerry's crewmates that support him are surely enjoying the attention and dinners, interviews, etc. but to think that these 253 vets suddenly came to their senses after 30 years and decided to protest Kerry's medals and actions...well, that seems a bit naive and partisan on your part. Why is one group only partisan politics and the other noble and just? Your Republican fringe is showing.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
