Reply
Thu 29 Jul, 2004 08:36 am
http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc82.htm
Quote:
Capped by Kerry's primetime speech to accept the Democratic Party's nomination, Thursday's program will include appearances and remarks by Kerry's Swift Boat crewmates, the Kerry-Ewards campaing announced in a press release this morning
But a group of veterans will try to convince a nation how what is presented on the convention stage tonight -- may not be the full story: "Only 2 of John Kerry's 23 fellow Swift boat commanders from Coastal Division 11 support his candidacy today.......
Quote:"Only 2 of John Kerry's 23 fellow Swift boat commanders from Coastal Division 11 support his candidacy today.......
I'm sure this would be devastating news to anyone running for president of the Swift Boat Commanders Tontine and Benevolent Society.
In other news, nine out of ten fighter pilots who successfully defended Texas against the Viet Cong support George W. Bush.
They're probably all voting for Nader, knowing their navalesque profession and his ideals...
Hey!
Leave Nader out of this.
The mainstream media is gradually picking up the story. This has been floating around on the media fringe for awhile, but given that the Dems are touting Kerry's Vietnam duty as one of the most important thing that he has done and it qualifies him to be Commander in Chief much more than George Bush, it is inevitable that it will become an issue:
Kerry's exploits in Vietnam are disputed in best seller
Yup. It has a pretty respectable circulation. Being definitely slanted conservative, it is far more likely to report a story like this than is the leftwing media; however, the leftwing has to maintain some degree of objectivity, so as more report, sooner or later all them have to deal with it.
It's possible this one will die on the vine, of course, but with the book coming out, and if the accounts are correct that the large majority of Kerry's crewmates agree that he is mostly fabricating his Vietnam experience, the story is likely to have legs.
I think it will take more than words to convince anyone that these people have nothing more than an agenda in "telling the truth."
What agenda would Kerry's crewmates--those who were there on the boat with him--have other than telling the truth?
Though it wasn't all that big a deal, it has already been proved that Kerry lied about the ribbon/medal throwing episode. It was no big deal other than it showed he will lie for political expediency.
So what is it about him that makes you so sure he is telling the truth about the other especially when all but one or two who were on the boat with him say he's making it up?
The Washington Times is owned, of course, by the Rev. Moon, who just made waves by having himself crowned in a ceremony in a Congressional office. Something about him being the messiah...
It is true that the Moonies own the lion's share of Washington Times stock along with many other business entities; however most of the Times investigative reporters are syndicated and write for lots of different media sources.
Foxfyre wrote:What agenda would Kerry's crewmates--those who were there on the boat with him--have other than telling the truth?
Which of his crewmates -- the people who actually served on the same boat, at the same time, as Kerry -- contributed to this book?
Foxfyre wrote:So what is it about him that makes you so sure he is telling the truth about the other especially when all but one or two who were on the boat with him say he's making it up?
See question above.
As the book isn't out yet, all is pretty much hearsay at this point. But apparently at least 11 of Kerry's crewmates who were on the boat with him are on the record as saying he isn't telling it like it was. Apparently two crewmates initially opposed him but, after some armtwisting from the campaign, have since agreed to stand with him in the campaign.
I don't know if the story is true or not and only bring it up because it is being put out there and the book is scheduled for a fall release--could this be the "October surprise?" of the 2004 campaign?
At any rate, if the story is credible, it will have legs.
Foxfyre wrote:I don't know if the story is true or not....
Then I suggest you stop citing rumors and bald conjecture as facts.
In the meantime, here's some information about John O'Neill and "his" organization.
Disinfopedia: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
How about showing me where I posted any of this as 'truth' other than the fact that its out there and my opinion that, if true, the story will have legs?
Are you suggesting that nothing in the news should be posted on A2K unless it is verified beyond question that it is the truth? Would you want to put all your posts to that test?
If I were conservative, I’d just stay away from the whole Vietnam thing. Kerry requested to go, he fought and killed somewhere around 20 VC during that time, and while under fire from VC, he ordered his swift boat to go in and save another solder who was in the water (Kerry's metal has a “V” for valor as a result).
Whats that? He didn’t stay long enough? He wasn’t hurt enough? He actually spoke out against a war that he himself fought, killed and was injured in? Cry me a friggin’ river. I would say “just cut it out”, but I hope you all continue with this nonsense. The more you bring up the issue, the more you Bush lovers make the president look like the pampered, protected party boy that he was during that time.
Whats that about Kerry’s medals? Tell you what, show me the ones that Bush earned and we’ll talk. The only shots Bush ever took during 'Nam were at parties. Sucks to be you.
The medals he rejected and symbolically threw away? The same heroics that he decried in the time following his return from the war?
I would not begrudge Kerry his service. He served valiantly and he should be proud of his service. But, what has he done to prove himself in the 30 years since?
Foxfyre wrote:How about showing me where I posted any of this as 'truth' other than the fact that its out there and my opinion that, if true, the story will have legs?
Are you suggesting that nothing in the news should be posted on A2K unless it is verified beyond question that it is the truth? Would you want to put all your posts to that test?
I wouldn't hesitate to put Joe's posts to that test. What would be the point of posting rumours about possible rumours?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace