2
   

Unfit for Command

 
 
Robin Hood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 02:03 pm
Who's with Kerry at the Democratic Convention?
You know, despite its inflammatory potential that Swift Vets site is rather informative. It's FAQ at least clarfies some of what you've been going back and forth about.
Quote:
If most of Kerry's fellow Swift veterans don't support him, then who were all those guys with him at the Democratic Convention? They made it appear that Kerry has the complete support of his "Band of Brothers" from Vietnam.

John Kerry has been able to convince about 13 men who served on Swift boats in the Mekong Delta to support him, 7 or 8 of whom were at various times crew members on his own 6-man boat. Those are the men the Kerry campaign so prominently featured at the Democratic Convention. The photograph we have posted at SwiftVets.com shows Kerry with 19 of his fellow Swift boat OICs (Officers In Charge) in Coastal Division 11. Four OICs were not present for the photograph. Only one of his 23 fellow OICs from Coastal Division 11 supports John Kerry.

Overall, more than 250 Swift boat veterans are on the record questioning Kerry's fitness to serve as Commander-in-Chief. That list includes his entire chain of command -- every single officer Kerry served under in Vietnam. The Kerry game plan is to ignore all this and pretend that the 13 veterans his campaign jets around the country and puts up in 5-star hotels really represent the truth about his short, controversial combat tour.

The Swift boats fought in groups, so the other OICs who fought alongside Kerry know him well and can accurately describe what he did and did not do. In many cases Kerry's fellow OICs had a better perspective than his own crew members, since the latter had no way to determine whether he was following orders and how well he worked with his peers.
0 Replies
 
ffwff
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 03:06 pm
You Cannot Destroy the Truth with Lies!
Know the Truth and the Truth Will Set You Free

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/05/politics/main634123.shtml

Anti-Kerry Vet Retracts Claim

August 6, 2004

John Kerry, center, as US Navy Lieutenent, with PCF-31 crew members in the Mekong Delta during the Vietnam War. (Photo: AP)

"I deplore this kind of politics. I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable."
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., came to the defense of fellow Vietnam veteran Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. (Photo: CBS/The Early Show)

Kerry with his "band of brothers" - veterans who served with him in Vietnam - after a ceremonial boat ride across Boston Harbor on his way to the Democratic Convention. (Photo: AP)

(CBS/AP) The furor continues over a new TV ad that attacks Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's war record. Some television stations have agreed to pull the controversial commercial, and one of the veterans who criticized Kerry's service now says he was mistaken.

The 60-second spot - scheduled to run in small markets in three swing states - Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin - features Vietnam veterans who accuse Kerry of lying about his decorated Vietnam War record and betraying his fellow veterans by later opposing the conflict.

"When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry," one of the veterans, Larry Thurlow, says in the ad.

But one of the leading figures in the anti-Kerry campaign is backing off his criticisms.

Lt. Commander George Elliott, Kerry's former commanding officer, told The Boston Globe that he had made a "terrible mistake" when he signed an affidavit that suggested Kerry did not deserve one of his medals, the Silver Star.

The affidavit was given to the Globe by the anti-Kerry group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, to back up claims in their ad and a new book on Kerry's war years, "Unfit for Command," which is being released next week.

The affidavit quotes Elliott as saying that Kerry "lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

But Elliott now says he regrets signing the affidavit and believes Kerry deserved the Silver Star.

"I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott told the Globe Thursday. "It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words."

"I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake," Elliott said.

The Kerry camp, which has used his service in Vietnam as a major selling point, called the commercial "an inflammatory outrageous lie," and in a letter to local TV stations asked them to pull it.

Communications director Stephanie Cutter said the American people deserve better.

"I think the American people are tired of these misleading attack ads by the Bush-Cheney campaign. We need to talk about real issues," said Cutter.

Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a war hero himself, denounced the ad as "dishonest and dishonorable," and pointed out a similar tactic was used against him four years ago during his contentious primary race against Mr. Bush.

On Thursday, McCain called on the White House to condemn the practice.

The White House distanced itself from the anti-Kerry ad, but declined to condemn it.

"We have not questioned Kerry's service in Vietnam," spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters. He also called for an end to the campaign finance reform loophole that helps fund these attacks ads, a number of which have targeted the president.

"We have called for an immediate cessation of these ads and hope John Kerry will, too," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

The Kerry camp is taking a wait-and-see approach to that challenge. But for now, reports CBS News Correspondent Cynthia Bowers, some of those TV stations have already agreed to pull the ads.

The Kerry campaign also accused the Swift Boat group of having political ties to the Republican Party.

"Far from being a grassroots organization of veterans, this group is a front for the right-wing Texas Republicans to try and take away one of John Kerry's political strengths ­ his service to the country in Vietnam," the campaign charged in a 36-page document given to reporters.

And, indeed, a wealthy Texan and prolific Republican donor is helping bankroll the anti-Kerry ad campaign.

Houston homebuilder Bob J. Perry has donated at least $100,000 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Perry's other donations in the 2003-04 cycle include $10,000 to the pro-Republican Club for Growth and at least $19,250 to federal candidates and party committees, including $2,000 to Bush's re-election effort.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 03:15 pm
Hmmm, usually an article so obviously slanted to one point of view will have a writer's byline on it. At least that used to be the rule. I guess CBS doesn't follow that or, the article is written maybe by another staffer for the Kerry campaign?

According to one account, Elliott today said he is being very much misrepresented here and he is standing by his statements with the veterans opposing Kerry.
0 Replies
 
Robin Hood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 04:10 pm
I wish somebody would set CBS free.
This is one of the reasons I didn't renew my cable connection.

CBS (a national television network) posted that article on August 6, 2004 2:37pm ET.

Drudge (a bizarre little news website) already posted Elliot's objection to that article on Aug 06 2004 13:37:12 ET (which I tried to tell you about in one of my previous posts--if anybody remembers).

So, now that we've confirmed that CBS News is No News,
has anybody found out what happened to Ralph Dobson?
0 Replies
 
Robin Hood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 04:30 pm
Quote:
indeed, a wealthy Texan and prolific Republican donor is helping bankroll the anti-Kerry ad campaign.


I'd bet those damn dirty Swift Vets for Truth were actually hoping to recruit a wealthy Massachute "Democrat for Truth",
but there was probably something about that title that scared them all off.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 04:36 pm
Yeah, 'wealthy Texan' is a lot scarier than the 'purer than the driven snow 527 separate organizations' who are bankrolling ads and promotions from Kerry, all separate from his campaign of course.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 04:45 pm
Or George Soros at 20 million and counting...
0 Replies
 
eccampbell
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 08:01 am
>> The Washington Times is now the mainstream media???
>
> 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 often happened that the small Washington Times broke a
story that the big Washington Post had no choice but to pick
up on.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 09:12 am
Welcome to A2K eccampbell. All of us, me included, view with suspicion the objectivity of any publication that is clearly slanted to either the left or the right. The Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times for instance will not give prominance to a story favorable for the Bush administration and may sit on a story unfavorable for Clinton or Kerry until somebody else forces them to at least give lip service to it. They will more often give front page headlines to bad news for Bush and good news for their preferred candidate. They howiever have to maintain at least the appearance of objectivity.

Conversely the Washington Times and New York Post will give front page headlines to good news for Bush and are usually less likely to play up good news for his opponents and vice versa.

It is often the fringe media, even a yellow journalism scandal rag like the National Enquirer, that gets the stories out there and forces big media to deal with them.

However maligned the NY Post and Washington Times often are, and in some cases justifiably so, they do provide an important service in making sure many stories won't be deep sixed and never make it to public view.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Aug, 2004 05:05 pm
For what it's worth ...

0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Aug, 2004 07:00 pm
General Franks might not campaign for President Bush, but I think we all know who he'll most likely vote for.

:wink:
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Aug, 2004 10:07 am
JustWonders wrote:
General Franks might not campaign for President Bush, but I think we all know who he'll most likely vote for.

:wink:

Bush, I assume.

All the more instructive how nevertheless he condemns the smear campaign against Kerry.

Might be a good example.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Aug, 2004 10:16 am
USAToday does some fact checking on the Swift Boat Vets for Truth allegations. Check out what it says about Lonsdale, Plumly and Letson.

First, there's the usual general background and some reasons why people like O'Neill and Hoffmann might be saying bad things about Kerry:


Then, some specifics about the main individuals making the anti-Kerry claims:

Quote:
Among those criticizing Kerry:

• George Elliott, who came to Kerry's defense during his 1996 Senate campaign when questions were raised about his Silver Star. Kerry received the award after beaching his boat to chase a Viet Cong guerrilla who was firing from shore. Kerry jumped ashore and killed the guerrilla. As Kerry's commander, Elliott approved the award and gave him glowing marks in fitness reports. But in an affidavit last month, Elliott said he "was never informed that (Kerry) had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back." Last week, Elliott recanted that affidavit in a statement to The Boston Globe, saying he had made "a terrible mistake." But the Swift Boat Veterans group has since issued a statement reaffirming Elliott's affidavit.

Elliott was not available for comment Sunday, but in an interview with USA TODAY earlier this year, he said that while he strongly disagreed with Kerry's anti-war activities, "I don't know how anyone would have taken the risks he took in combat just for the glory of running for office."

• Adrian Lonsdale, who in 1996 called Kerry "among the finest of those swift boat drivers." He says he changed his mind after reading Brinkley's book. Lonsdale, who outranked Kerry, recalls meeting him only once at an officers club. "The only thing I remember is he whined a lot about the lack of air support," he said.

• Charles Plumly, a retired Navy captain who was Hoffmann's chief of staff. He says Kerry "required a lot of supervision" and "did things without permission." Asked in an interview for examples, he said, "I can't give you exact specifics."

• Van O'Dell and Jack Chenoweth, who are among those who say Kerry lied about an incident on March 13, 1969, for which he received a Bronze Star and a third Purple Heart. Kerry was cited for pulling Army Special Forces Lt. Jim Rassmann from a river during a firefight, despite an arm injury. O'Dell says there was no enemy fire and Kerry "fled the scene." Chenoweth says that Kerry's arm was not bleeding and that the official reports were "completely different than" what he saw.

Rassmann has dismissed such accounts as "pure fabrication." Del Sandusky, Kerry's boat driver, says, "I saw the gun flashes in the jungle, and I saw the bullets skipping across the water," adding that the contrary accounts are "part of the Republican slime machine."

• Louis Letson, a doctor who says he treated Kerry. He says Kerry didn't deserve his first Purple Heart because he "inadvertently wounded himself" and "there was no hostile fire." Medical records, however, note that Kerry was treated for shrapnel by J.C. Carreon, not Letson. Bill Zaladonis, who was on Kerry's boat at the time, says the men believed they were shooting at Viet Cong.

FactCheck.org, a non-partisan group that monitors political ads, says Letson's story is "based on hearsay, and disputed hearsay at that." [..]
0 Replies
 
Robin Hood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Aug, 2004 10:51 am
KERRY LIED ABOUT SPENDING CHRISTMAS IN CAMBODIA
http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc91.htm
Quote:
Since the early 1970s, Kerry has spoken and written of how he was illegally ordered to enter Cambodia. Kerry mentioned it in the floor of the Senate in 1986 when he charged that President Reagan's actions in Central America were leading the U.S. in another Vietnam. Here's what he said as excerpted from the new book, UNFIT FOR COMMAND:

I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared--seared--in me.

DRUDGE has learned from the accounts of Swift Boat officers and Kerry's crewmembers that Kerry was never in Cambodia. UNFIT FOR COMMAND authors charge that Kerry made it all up.

"Despite the dramatic memories of his Christmas in Cambodia, Kerry's statements are complete lies," according to John O'Neil, co-author and the Swift Boat commander who took over Kerry's boat. "Kerry was never in Cambodia during Christmas 1968, or at all during the Vietnam War. . . . he was more than fifty miles away from Cambodia."

Kerry was stationed at Coastal Division 13 in Cat Lo. Coastal Division 13's patrol areas extended to Sa Dec, about 55 miles from the Cambodian border. . . . Tom Anderson, Commander of River Division 531, who was in charge of PBRs (small river patrol crafts] confirmed that there were no Swifts anywhere in the area and they would have been stopped had they appeared.

All the living commanders in Kerry's chain of command . . . deny that Kerry was ever ordered to Cambodia. They indicate that Kerry would have been seriously disciplined or court-martialed had he gone there. At least three of the five crewmen on Kerry's boat, Bill Zaldonis, Steven Hatch, and Steve Gardner, deny that they or their boat were ever in Cambodia.

O'Neill observed that the Cambodia incursion story is not included in Tour of Duty (Kerry's recent biography). Instead, Kerry replaced the story with a report about a mortar attack that occurred on Christmas Eve 1968 "near the Cambodian border" in a town called Sa Dec and Christmas day was spent at the base writing entries in his journal.

After conducting interviews and research, authors of Unfit for Command conclude, "The truth is that Kerry made up his secret mission into Cambodia.... the lie about the illegal Cambodian incursion painted his superiors up the chain of command. . . . as villains faced down by John Kerry, a solitary hero in grave and exotic danger and forced illegally against his will into harm's way."

Maybe Kerry was just mistaken about his location.
Then again, maybe we could get Kerry an oval office about 55 miles from Washington D.C. and just let him be mistaken about being President.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Aug, 2004 12:35 pm
Quote:
August 09, 2004
Swift Boat Veterans For Truth's Rising Tide

This weekend brought a rising tide for the 527 anti-Kerry group "Swiftboat Veterans For Truth" and they had little to do with it. The world of blogs began investigating John Kerry and came up with a very interesting look at John Kerry's Christmas in 1968. That's fair, the Kerry camp has presented a glowing picture of his Viet Nam service, the SwiftVets have challenged that.

The interest in the group's charges against John Kerry should increase this week. They will be challenged and examined by pundits and journalists. And that's how it should be. Their blistering ad that first appeared last week calls John Kerry a lair in no uncertain terms and will be followed by a sure to be best-seller titled "Unfit for Command." They should be examined as should their charges.

But so should John Kerry.

The Kerry examination began over the weekend, not by the old media, but by the Internet world of blogs. Over the weekend many have dug up a particularly interesting tidbit on exactly where John Kerry spent his Christmas in 1968.

Was he ordered illegally into Cambodia? Kerry says he was.

Did he go accidentally into Cambodia? Kerry says he did.

Did he spend his Christmas only "close to the Cambodian border?" Kerry says he did.

From the AP's John Diamond in 1992...

Navy Lt. John Kerry knew he had no business steering his Mekong River patrol boat across the border into Cambodia, but orders were orders.

From the Boston Globe's Michael Kranish... (hey where have I heard that name before?)

To top it off, Kerry said, he had gone several miles inside Cambodia, which theoretically was off limits, prompting Kerry to send a sarcastic message to his superiors that he was writing from the Navy's "most inland" unit.


From historian David Brinkley in "Tour of Duty"…

In this biography released this year Kerry replaced the story with a report about a mortar attack that occurred on Christmas Eve 1968 "near the Cambodian border" in a town called Sa Dec.

From The Senate Congressional Record March 27, 1986...

Mr. President, I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared-seared-in me, that says to me, before we send another generation into harm's way we have a responsibility in the U.S. Senate to go the last step, to make the best effort possible in order to avoid that kind of conflict.

Liberal pundits are telling anyone who will listen that the SwiftVets are liars, except the ones who are on John Kerry's bandwagon and with him on the campaign trail. They are the truth tellers. It's hard to tell who's lying here, but without question someone is. John Kerry's definitely lying either about being ordered into Cambodia, or traveling several miles within Cambodia, or not at all.

They can't all be true. But it's hard to tell as he has so many stories on record one of them has to be the truth, and the others have to be lies.

This begs the question who are you going to believe, John Kerry or John Kerry?


Source
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Aug, 2004 12:36 pm
No link, X?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Aug, 2004 12:41 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
No link, X?

Cycloptichorn


Fixed it, thanks for the heads up.
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Aug, 2004 03:48 pm
Kerry should forget about Vietnam and stick to stuff he's good at. In his position, I'd promise the world to publish a book titled "How to Marry Rich Women" the day after I was inaugerated as president.
0 Replies
 
Robin Hood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Aug, 2004 04:48 pm
Quote:
Kerry should forget about Vietnam and stick to stuff he's good at.

I must take exception to that comment.
Kerry was in fact very good at Vietnam.
See the museum that recognizes Kerry for his greatest accomplishment for Vietnam:
Vietnam Hall of Fame
...where "a photograph of John Kerry hangs in a room dedicated to the anti-war activists who helped...win the Vietnam War."

And take a good hard look at all of John Kerry's other great accomplishments related to Vietnam and then you come back and try to tell me that John Kerry was only good at getting himself a rich wife:
Tribute to John Kerry's Service in Support of Vietnam

There aren't too many Presidential candidates who can claim all that!
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Aug, 2004 02:43 pm
Looks like at least one Swift-Boat-Vets-Against-Kerry activist has been overstating his case ...

Larry Thurlow had sworn in an affidavit that Kerry was "not under fire" when he fished Lt. James Rassmann out of the water. He therefore 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," he even said in his affidavit. The whole Bronze Star controversy in fact is a major focus of John E. O'Neill's anti-Kerry book, "Unfit for Command", and the Swift Boat Vets' attack ad.

Alas, Thurlow's own military records disprove him. They recommend himself for actions that "took place under constant enemy small arms fire" and states that all other units in the flotilla also came under fire.

So Kerry didn't lie. Not about this, either.

Quote:
Records Counter a Critic of Kerry
Fellow Skipper's Citation Refers To Enemy Fire

By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 19, 2004; Page A01

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."

As one of five Swift boat skippers who led the raid up the Bay Hap River, Thurlow was a direct participant in the disputed events. He is also a leading member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a public advocacy group of Vietnam veterans dismayed by Kerry's subsequent antiwar activities, which has aired a controversial television advertisement attacking his war record.

In interviews and written reminiscences, Kerry has described how his 50-foot patrol boat came under fire from the banks of the Bay Hap after a mine explosion disabled another U.S. patrol boat. According to Kerry and members of his crew, the firing continued as an injured Kerry leaned over the bow of his ship to rescue a Special Forces officer who was blown overboard in a second explosion.

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. The group claims the backing of more than 250 Vietnam veterans, including a majority of Kerry's fellow boat commanders.

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. [..]

Kudos to the guy on one score, though. Thurlow basically said Kerry was a coward, who'd never even been under enemy fire when he earned the lesser of his medals, the bronze star. He knew, cause he was in the same place. But now his own military records showed that, yes, they were under enemy fire that day. Confronted with his lie (or perhaps his partisan-loyalty-impacted memory deficiency), however, he sticks to his loyalties even if he has to sacrifice his own good name for it. He'd rather say both his own and Kerry's medals were "fraudulent" than have to admit to any of Kerry's heroism. Now thats political passion.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Unfit for Command
  3. » Page 6
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.73 seconds on 06/26/2024 at 10:51:55