The Democrat Convention---2004

Foxfyre wrote:

Sorry Nimh, the sources you posted are all the same stuff I've turned up - mostly rehashes of DNC press releases fed to the media. The only place I've seen or heard any of them live has been on Fox and that was Rassman tonight. They've been remarkably absent everywhere else. I'll keep watching, however, for evidence of them out campaigning for Kerry as you say.

Well, thats funny. Cause I browsed quite a few of those links, and found interviews; reports on campaign meetings that were attended by the crewmate in question; reports on briefings given by the crewmate in question; all kinds of stuff. (Not gonna look all those up for you too, tho.)

Let me remind you of what you originally said, before you go and move the goalposts and claim all kinds of ways in which this or that kind of campaigning 'doesnt count':

Foxfyre: I don't know what I think about all these guys 'campaigning for Kerry' but they sure aren't being quoted in the daily paper or getting TV interviews

me: Many of these men have personally speeched, gone to campaign stops, done interviews, the lot.

Foxfyre: They have? Where are they? [..] Where are these guys that are out campaigning for Kerry?

Well, just gave you a coupla links, each worth a few Google pages. They got interviews, they got them "being quoted in the daily paper", they got reports on campaign meetings with the guy, etc. So what exactly is your point - apart from trying to avoid the issue of nine outa ten of Kerry's former crewmates telling of his courage, care and valour?

0 Replies

Does that story gel with the language of the citation itself do you think?
http://wikisource.org/wiki/Silver_Star_Citation_-_John_Kerry

0 Replies

Same stories, more or less, but a different take, and, to my thinking, perfectly plausible:

Quote:

Vet: Officers told Kerry to leave Vietnam
Colleagues couldn't take John's behavior, attitudes anymore
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Sen. John Kerry was told to leave Vietnam by three colleagues upset with his behavior and attitudes, according to a fellow swift-boat officer during the war.

Thomas Wright says the misbehavior of the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate got to the point where he no longer wanted him in his boat group. So, at Wright's request, his divisional commander assigned Kerry to another group.

Then Wright and like-minded boat officers took matters into their own hands, according to John B. Dwyer, a Vietnam veteran and military historian writing in the online magazine American Thinker.

"When he got his third Purple Heart, three of us told him to leave," Wright said, according to Dwyer. "We knew how the system worked and we didn't want him in Coastal Division 11.

"Kerry didn't manipulate the system," he continued, "we did."

Wright, who at times was officer-in-charge over Kerry, said he had occasion to observe Kerry's behavior and attitudes, and the circumstances surrounding his early departure from the war zone.

Wright noted Kerry's chosen moniker for radio communications between the boats was "Boston Strangler."

The officer said he and most other swift-boat officers had two commandments: 1. Protect the crews. 2. Win.

But working with "Boston Strangler" became problematical, he said, according to Dwyer.

"I had a lot of trouble getting him to follow orders," Wright recalled. "He had a different view of leadership and operations. Those of us with direct experience working with Kerry found him difficult and oriented toward his personal, rather than unit goals and objectives."

Wright said he "believed that overall responsibility rested squarely on the shoulders of the OIC or OTC [Officer-in-Tactical Command] in a free-fire zone. You had to be right [before opening fire]."

However, he continued, "Kerry seemed to believe there were no rules in a free-fire zone, and you were supposed to kill anyone. I didn't see it that way."

The rules were vital, Wright emphasized, because it was important the enemy "understood that swift boats were a competent, effective force that could dominate his location."

"You couldn't achieve that by indiscriminate use of weapons in free-fire zones," he said.

Wright referred to the three Purple Hearts awarded to Kerry, which allowed him to leave Vietnam for the U.S.

"No one wanted a Purple Heart because it meant we had made a mistake," he said. "We made sure our crews were recognized, but no one took pride in a Purple Heart."

More than a dozen of Kerry's superior officers and colleagues during the war held a press conference May 4 in Washington to tell Americans the senator is unfit to be commander-in-chief of the United States.

Retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffman, who headed Coastal Division 11, said Kerry was seen by colleagues as a self-serving, "loose cannon" who came only to launch a political career.

Hoffman said Kerry "arrived in country with a strong anti-Vietnam War bias and a self-serving determination to build a foundation for his political future."

"He was aggressive, but vain and prone to impulsive judgment, often with disregard to specific tactical assignments," Hoffman said. "He was a loose cannon."

Hoffman and his colleagues with the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are among more than 200 veterans who have signed a letter asking Kerry to authorize the Department of the Navy to release all of his military records, including health documents.

0 Replies

Nimh, we aren't going to agree on the issues of Kerry's boatmates. I'm seeing everybody and their dog being interviewed on CNBC, CNN, Fox, and all the alphabet channels as well as radio talk shows and these boatmates just aren't being included in the mix except for Rassman.

The video clips of Kerry in his boat, walking through the jungle with his rifle, etc. seem to substantiate the stories that he went back to stage and re-enact some of the stuff he did so he would have a record for 'later'. They showed some of these at the DNC convention. That would go along with a self-serving observation in Timber's piece.

Also Hannity had Jim Rassman on tonight for a fairly lengthly and cordial interview. At one point Shawn asked Rassman about the accusations Kerry had leveled against all the men re atrocities, etc. Rassman said he didn't like the way they in his boat shot at fisherman along the riverbanks, but otherwise he didn't see any atrocities. That sort of goes along with the piece Timber posted too.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Nimh, we aren't going to agree on the issues of Kerry's boatmates. I'm seeing everybody and their dog being interviewed on CNBC, CNN, Fox, and all the alphabet channels as well as radio talk shows and these boatmates just aren't being included in the mix except for Rassman.

Yes, you've repeated this before, but what does it mean? What argument do you derive from that?

Each of these men told their stories. They told it to ABC (I quoted it). NYT reported on it, the Globe reported on it, the SF Chronicle reported on it. They did interviews with many a local newspaper. They each went to Boston to join Kerry for the Convention - at least one of them speeched there, and all of them were there for meetings with the press.

They told their stories, and its been recorded in dozens of links. Dozens more recorded how they've gone to campaign stops, talking to other vets, talking for Kerry. Suppose you're right and you haven't seen them on CNN or Fox lately? What does that show? Does it change anything about their stories? Does it make their well-recorded positive opinion of Kerry's wartime feats anything else but well-recorded positive opinion of Kerry's wartime feats?

I'm sorry, I just dont see your point here. We've shown you the actual quotes of them saying the stuff they said, in interviews, in speeches. Have they not said it, or is that not what they said, just because, you know, you haven't come across any of it yourself while watching TV? "If I dont see it, it doesnt exist"?

I wish there were an "issue" you brought here that we're just "not going to agree on". But there's only a red herring. Now that you can't refute anymore that nine out of ten Kerry's former crewmates think he behaved courageously and valourously in Vietnam and has shown his fitness for command, you have found an unrelated reason to argue why what they have said is irrelevant, anyway - and the reason is that you haven't seen it yourself on TV? So what? What does that change about their testimonies?

Foxfyre wrote:

Also Hannity had Jim Rassman on tonight for a fairly lengthly and cordial interview. At one point Shawn asked Rassman about the accusations Kerry had leveled against all the men re atrocities, etc. Rassman said he didn't like the way they in his boat shot at fisherman along the riverbanks, but otherwise he didn't see any atrocities.

Well, yes. Several of Kerry's former crewmen, as I've noted already before, did not agree with his back-home anti-war activities. I've quoted Gene Thorson already, who noted in one of those newspaper interviews that you claim are somehow irrelevant that he himself was no peace activist. "I was a hawk back then, and I still am," he said.

But even he, like the other crewmates who didnt agree with what Kerry did once he came back home, praised Kerry's wartime achievements: "He had outstanding insticts [..] He really cared about all of us and he's going to be a great president." Even he "contacted the Democratic Party in Des Moines when they heard about the tour and asked if [he] could help", and has been out campaiging; "He does it for John Kerry and he does it for the veterans", in the words of his wife. In fact, he says that were it not for Kerry's unconventional action, the one he got his Silver Star for, the one that Timber said was really bad, he wouldnt be alive today.

Now if even those crewmates who virulently disagreed with Kerry's anti-war activities have called in to his campaign to tell people about his courage and valour during the war, that says something, no?

Foxfyre wrote:

Rassman said he didn't like the way they in his boat shot at fisherman along the riverbanks, but otherwise he didn't see any atrocities. That sort of goes along with the piece Timber posted too.

Except Rassman wasnt on Kerry's boat - he was the guy from the other boat who was saved by Kerry. So if Rassman's boat had been shooting at fishermen along the riverbanks, it wasnt at the orders of Kerry.

0 Replies

Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman wrote:

I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust.....

Los Angeles Times. 29 July 2004 wrote:

. . . Hoffman and Kerry had few direct dealings in Vietnam. A Los Angeles Times examination of Navy archives found that Hoffman praised Kerry's performance in cabled messages after several river skirmishes.

I doubt that the change in Hoffman's opinions are not a reflection of political differences. If that is the case he would do well to exhibit the integrity of Adrian Lonsdale.

Los Angeles Times. 29 July 2004 wrote:

"I don't like what he said after the war," said Adrian Lonsdale, who commanded Kerry for three months in 1969. "But he was a good naval officer."

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Does that story gel with the language of the citation itself do you think?
http://wikisource.org/wiki/Silver_Star_Citation_-_John_Kerry

Well, thank you! Most useful a source. Yes, I think the story told in the ABC report gels with this citation. Its a more detailed version of the part that in this citation is summarised as follows:

Vice-Admiral Zumwalt wrote:

Arriving at the area, Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY's craft received a B-40 rocket close aboard. Once again Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY ordered his units to charge the enemy positions and summoned Patrol Craft Fast 43 to the area to provide additional firepower. Patrol Craft Fast 94 then beached in the center of the enemy positions and an enemy soldier sprang up from his position not ten feet from Patrol Craft Fast 94 and fled. Without hesitation Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY leaped ashore, pursued the man behind a hootch and killed him, capturing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber. Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY then led an assault party and conducted a sweep of the area

Basically, if Kerry hadnt "captured that B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber", the man was likely to have shot it at them, too, and they would have been toast. He might indeed well have saved all of their lives.
As the citation concludes:

Vice-Admiral Zumwalt wrote:

As a result of this operation, ten Viet Cong were killed and one wounded with no friendly casualties. In addition, numerous sampans, structures and bunkers were destroyed as well as confiscation of substantial quantities of combat essential supplies. Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY's devotion to duty, courage under fire, outstanding leadership, and exemplary professionalism directly contributed to the success of this operation and were in keeping with the highest traditions of the Unites States Naval Service."

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Vet: Officers told Kerry to leave Vietnam

So all those stories about how Kerry arranged himself a quick exit from Vietnam, having cowardly sped himself through four months of trying to stay out of the action, are not actually true - they actually had to send him away for being too recklessly active?

Wow. That sure turns all the other Swiftboat Vets for Truth propaganda on its head. Some people there will need to find a story to get straight and stick to ... now it just starts to look rather arbitrary. According to the one he arranged himself to get out, according to the other he had to be sent away; according to one, he was a coward who fled his boat to safety while others were still under fire, according to the other he recklessly endangered other boats by heading right for the enemies ... As someone would say, it doesnt add up.

At least Kerry's actual crewmates have a more or less coherent story about what happened, with the odd differences in personal memory. The allegations from Kerry's detractors seem to be so all over the place that they just kinda confirm the impression of people looking for a stick to hit the dog with, as we say here ...

0 Replies

Lucky you're not here right now, nimh. I'd have had to hand you a towel. I just snorted, HUUUUUUGE!

Thanks for that morning smile.

Off to work now, smiling and chuckling.

0 Replies

perhaps there is some flip-flopping coming from the anti-Kerry crowd.

0 Replies

Elliott has now retracted his criticism of how Kerry got his Silver Star and says he was in error for signing off on the affidavit criticizing that. In reviewing the record, he now believes Kerry did deserve the medal.

The account he signed was not in the Purple Heart chapter of "Unfit for Command' (I requested and received this sample chapter in e-mail--if any of you want it, please PM me and I'll e-mail it to you or I think you can order it yourself on the veteran's website) This chapter has dates, names, places and, while not as damning as the affidavit Elliott signed and now retracts, is pretty damning as to Kerry's veracity of events. For instance Kerry's book reports spending Christmas in Cambodia at the illegal orders of his superiors and the "Unfit for Command' books shows how Kerry's dates don't mesh and how, at least in the opinion of the writer, Kerry was nowhere near Cambodia during his brief stint in Vietnam.

Conclusion to date: I suspect Kerry's opponents have embellished some of the facts. I also believe Kerry has more than embellished some of the facts to his political advantage. The facts are fair game for scrutiny however as Kerry himself has chosen to make Vietnam the cornerstone of his qualifications to be president.

0 Replies

Interesting ... I wondered what sort of response the "We told him to go" article would generate. No surprises so far.

0 Replies

Interesting tidbit from Rasmussen this week:
Among Veterans: Bush 58% Kerry 35%

48% Have Family or Friends in Iraq or Afghanistan

Do you know anyone currently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Yes 48%
No 51%
RasmussenReports.com

Thursday August 05, 2004--A Rasmussen Reports survey shows that military veterans prefer George W. Bush over John Kerry by a 58% to 35% margin. Those with no military service favor Kerry by ten percentage points, 51% to 41%.

The potential grassroots impact of the war issue is highlighted by the fact that 48% of Americans say they know someone who is currently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. Among these voters, Bush currently has a ten-point advantage in the poll. Fifty-four percent (54%) of veterans know someone serving in these war zones.

When it comes to perceptions of the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is likely that information from family and friends has a bigger impact than news coverage.

Overall, 47% of voters believe that Bush would make a better Commander-in-Chief than John Kerry. Forty-five percent (45%) take the opposite view and say Kerry would do a better job. This closely reflects the overall voter preference in the race for the White House (on the nights of this survey, Kerry attracted 48% of the total vote to 45% for Bush).

Veterans prefer Bush as Commander-in-Chief by a 60% to 33% margin. Fifty-four percent (54%) of veterans give the President good or excellent ratings for handling the situation in Iraq. Overall, just 43% of voters give the President such positive ratings on Iraq.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Veterans%20Vote.htm

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Interesting ... I wondered what sort of response the "We told him to go" article would generate. No surprises so far.

You trying to say that even you knew it was BS?

0 Replies

[size=8]<spitting soup at the screen> [/size] Laughing

0 Replies

LOL and coughing

0 Replies

Well after my earlier post re Elliott retracting his criticism of Kerry's Silver Star, Drudge just posted this on his website. If Drudge is right (and sometimes he is - sometimes he isn't) this becomes curiouser and curiouser:

ANTI-KERRY VETS HANG TOUGH
Fri Aug 06 2004 13:37:12 ET

The following statement from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth concerns an article appearing in morning edition of the BOSTON GLOBE, written by GLOBE reporter and author of the official Kerry-Edwards campaign book, Mike Kranish.

"Captain George Elliott describes an article appearing in today's edition of the BOSTON GLOBE by Mike Kranish as extremely inaccurate and highly misstating his actual views. He reaffirms his statement in the current advertisement paid for by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Captain Elliott reaffirms his affidavit in support of that advertisement, and he reaffirms his request that the ad be played.

"Additional documentation will follow.

"The article by Mr. Kranish is particularly surprising given page 102 of Mr. Kranish's own book quoting John Kerry as acknowledging that he killed a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong soldier whom he was afraid would turn around.

"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has more than 250 supporters who are revealing first hand, eyewitness accounts of numerous incidents concerning John Kerry's military service record. The organization will continue to discuss much of what John Kerry has reported as fact concerning his four-month tour of duty in Vietnam."

END

0 Replies

Also on Drudge today:

Quote:

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX FRI AUG 06, 2004 14:05:38 ET XXXXX

BOSTON GLOBE 'REPORTER' PAID TO WRITE OFFICIAL CAMPAIGN BOOK FOREWORD -- WHILE COVERING KERRY

BOSTON GLOBE journalist Mike Kranish has been commissioned to write the foreword of the official Kerry-Edwards campaign book -- just as he is covering the campaign in an official capacity as a journalist for the BOSTON GLOBE!

Kranish made waves on Friday by reporting in the GLOBE how a key figure in the anti-Kerry vet ad campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, "backed off one of the key contentions."

But Captain George Elliott claims the Kranish article is "extremely inaccurate" and highly misstated his actual views.

[TV Station WTVG 13-ABC, Toledo, Ohio dropped the anti-Kerry vet ad on Friday after the Kerry campaign used the GLOBE/Kranish story to convince the station's management the ad was false.]

Developing...

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

You trying to say that even you knew it was BS?

Nahhh, not at all. What I figure is that any "Dissention within the ranks" reports concerning Kerry's detractors will be siezed on by some as vindicating Kerry. That article I posted is several months old, BTW ... not "New News" at all. I do find it plausible, but I doubt it is "The Whole Story". I will say that while odd things happen, particularly in war, I find much of the "Kerry Versions" of Kerry's in-country wartime experiences to be somewhat implausible.

As I said earlier, I put great weight on the positions of his fellow boat commanders and of his direct superior officers. One thing I haven't seen much made of is that the somewhat obscure, seldom invoked (and no longer operative) "BUPERS Instruction 1300.39" which Kerry employed to end his combat assignment rested final decision regarding whether or not to recommend the requested reasignment at the Divisional Command level, stated specifically " ... (T)he commanding officer of an officer who is hospitalized and/or wounded under the above criteria will advise the Chief of Naval Personnel (Pers-B1) of the officer's location, duty status, and expected duration of hospitalization. Reassignment of the officer will be determined after consideration of his physical classification and on an individual basis."

The phrase " ... Reassignment of the officer will be determined after consideration of his physical classification and on an individual basis." is key here. If Kerry was felt to be a fit and valuable asset to his unit, it is highly unlikely his reassignment request would have been approved for forwarding to BUPERS in any sort of timely manner, let alone expedited throughout the entire process. Obviously, "consideration" of Kerry's request didn't eat up much time ... he was "Outtathere" and home just days after his third Purple ... and obviously, it was "on an individual basis".

It is quite evident to me Coastal Division 11, his parent unit, was undismayed by his departure, and the simple fact the rarely invoked reasignment request was approved in short order and its progress through the legendarily labrynthine and lethargic Bureau of Personnel USN (with which organization I have some first-hand familiarity ... like as in in reams of tripilicate-form, signed and countersigned, forwarded-from-one-department-to-another-to-another-and-back-and-then-some-more instructions, requests, replies and surreplies and addendums and requests for further documentation etc. etc, etc. ... Rolling Eyes

) was expedited tells me the big folks at Coastal Division 11 wanted him elsewhere, and as soon as possible would be good, too, if you would, please, Sirs.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

nimh wrote:
... Makes one think about a) your view of man and b) the utter, bitter partisanity that must drive you ...

I don't think there's much cause to wonder what I, or some others think about Kerry the Man, Kerry the Commander, or Kerry the Candidate. As for partisanship, well maybe that's a matter of perspective ... with each side puzzled by the other side's stance, with some given to the intellectual laziness of blanketly attributing oppositional viewpoint to shallow, illfounded bitterness. Personally, that's not a practice to which I subscribe.

I have an useful habit of remembering pretty much anything I mark for memory, and when you said this I recalled a bunch of times when you did precisely what you disavow here (simply write off someone's arguments as partisanship).

Thing is, when I searched your posts for both "partisan" and "partisanship" I came up with what I think was 100 posts exactly (I believe it was 84 for the former and 16 for the latter when I searched) and because I haven't had as much time for A2K stuff as I'd like I didn't feel like going through the list to bring you an example.

So I did what I frequently do, I decided to mark this for later and bring the next instance of this to you. What I didn't know was that it would be such a short wait.

timberlandko, 41 minutes ago, wrote: "Partisan poppycock. Here, unwrap this:"

Note: I don't happen to think it wrong to characterize a position as inordinately partisan, and if anything usually just disagree with the validity of specific characterizations, just thought it odd you'd set the doorknob so high for yourself on a medium that facilitates the exemplification of being subsequently unable to reach it.

0 Replies

The Democrat Convention---2004

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know