Kerry's Interminable Four Months (Combat Tour My ...)

Harper wrote:

Kerry didn't lie about Cambodia. If anything, if what he is said was incorrect, he was mistaken. Any rational person can figure that out. He had no reason to lie about it. There is no possible motivation to do so and it goes against the grain of what the man is all about. I love how the right who regurgitate deceit every hour of the day are so quick to call someone who may have misspoke a liar.

I like you Harper. It is such fun reading your posts, even if you are a democrat. Hehe. Anyway, he did lie and no amount of denying it can cover that fact. He has emphatically lied about it. I mean how can a memory be seared into his head if it never happened? Now if you want to argue he was only mistaken about the date, have at it. Too many on this forum are hypocrits when it comes to their own candidates. You constantly claim Bush lied when he went to war over WMD's even though there was intel that said there were. Yet of course your own candidate is only mistaken when he has claimed something for 35 years that is not true and only has admitted his error when finally challenged on it by other veterans.

I will ask you just like I have seen Bush supporters asked in this forum. Can't you just say these two words..."Kerry lied". It is easy really. Then we can go on to discuss whether or not this lie could mean he is lying about other aspects of his service. I don't think it means that. Hope that makes you happy. Laughing

He lied in order to emphasize a point many years ago. And at least he did not flip-flop on that lie until now, so I will give him credit for that. (Ok, that is just to lighten things up, so don't crucify me for that comment)

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Harper wrote:
Kerry didn't lie about Cambodia. If anything, if what he is said was incorrect, he was mistaken. Any rational person can figure that out. He had no reason to lie about it. There is no possible motivation to do so and it goes against the grain of what the man is all about. I love how the right who regurgitate deceit every hour of the day are so quick to call someone who may have misspoke a liar.

Wow. just...wow. Let me demonstrate the "wowness" of this post.

Bush didn't lie about WMD's. If anything, if what he is said was incorrect, he was mistaken. Any rational person can figure that out. He had no reason to lie about it. There is no possible motivation to do so and it goes against the grain of what the man is all about. I love how the left who regurgitate deceit every hour of the day are so quick to call someone who may have misspoke a liar.

McG, you said that so much better than I did. Laughing

0 Replies

Harper wrote:

Sofia wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Sofia wrote:
By the same guys who are continuing to question it now--swiftvets.

wrong. svfb was only formed this year. o'neill was recruited in 1971 by coulson to do nixon's dirty work.

Many of the people who COMPRISE swiftvets were speaking out against Kerry. If O'Neill was recruited, it was after they heard of him already questioning Kerry publicly.

Huh? O'Neil has been trying to avenge Kerry since Kerry handed him his head on the Dick Cavett Show in 1971. You seem to be saying this bitter old man just popped up from nowhere.

Nah. I know O'Neill has been around since Kerry's smear of Vietnam vets right after the war.

0 Replies

Quote:

I like you Harper. It is such fun reading your posts, even if you are a democrat. Hehe. Anyway, he did lie and no amount of denying it can cover that fact. He has emphatically lied about it. I mean how can a memory be seared into his head if it never happened?

If it turns out that the swiftvets are mistaken in their memories, will they be liars? Memory is a funny thing, and I don't believe anyone can remember any specific incident with any accuracy when it occurred 35 years ago. If he lied, what did it get him?

0 Replies

Quote:

Nah. I know O'Neill has been around since Kerry's smear of Vietnam vets right after the war.

How is it a smear to tell the truth? Are you claiming that atrocities such as he described did not, in fact, happen in Vietnam? Or that drug use was not rampant amongst soldiers?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

It smeared the ones who were innocent.

Just because Kerry did these things is no reason for him to smear them all.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

It smeared the ones who were innocent.

Just because Kerry did these things is no reason for him to smear them all.

Do you actually know what Kerry said to Congress about Vietnam? All of it? I've read the transcript and it is a far cry from a smear.

0 Replies

Re: Coastal Rat

CoastalRat wrote:

If you are trying to prove he volunteered for 2 tours of duty, I think you will have a hard time. He volunteered for military service, was assigned to the USS Gridley, then volunteered for Swift Boat duty and was sent to Nam after his training. None of that is a smear on Kerry. It is simply the facts.

i could be wrong, but i could swear that on kerry's site there is a doc that shows that kerry's "desired posting" was "pacific". since vietnam was in full swing, it's reasonable to think that was where he would be sent by that request.

by the way, it might be helpful to remember that the whole vietnam conflict began when north vietnames fast boats fired on american cruisers in the gulf of tonken. so much for "safe out at sea".

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

How is it a smear to tell the truth?
Cycloptichorn

That was so good, I think we all need to read it again.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Quote:
I like you Harper. It is such fun reading your posts, even if you are a democrat. Hehe. Anyway, he did lie and no amount of denying it can cover that fact. He has emphatically lied about it. I mean how can a memory be seared into his head if it never happened?

If it turns out that the swiftvets are mistaken in their memories, will they be liars? Memory is a funny thing, and I don't believe anyone can remember any specific incident with any accuracy when it occurred 35 years ago. If he lied, what did it get him?

Actually it depends. A lie is a statement that is known to be false when made. Now, based on what the SBV's are saying, I do think that if their statements are proved false that they would be liars. Although I will not state that categorically for all of them, since there may be some truth to what they say. For instance, it could be faulty memories when they claim Kerry was not under fire while rescuing Rassmann. I can see that. There are other statements about at least one of Kerry's wounds that I don't see how they could be anything but liars if what they claim is not true.

Kerry came back and made this claim. He said it was seared into his memory. I have no idea why he felt it necessary to make this up, but denying that he did is not going to cut it. Faulty memory? Naw. I can accept that he was just mistaken when he claimed Nixon was the president who denied he was in Cambodia on Christmas that year, but being there and dodging fire from allies celebrating Christmas? No, I won't buy the mistaken thing for that reason alone.

Anyway, I guess you really didn't need this long of an explanation, but you are stuck with it. Laughing

0 Replies

Re: Coastal Rat

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:
If you are trying to prove he volunteered for 2 tours of duty, I think you will have a hard time. He volunteered for military service, was assigned to the USS Gridley, then volunteered for Swift Boat duty and was sent to Nam after his training. None of that is a smear on Kerry. It is simply the facts.

i could be wrong, but i could swear that on kerry's site there is a doc that shows that kerry's "desired posting" was "pacific". since vietnam was in full swing, it's reasonable to think that was where he would be sent by that request.

by the way, it might be helpful to remember that the whole vietnam conflict began when north vietnames fast boats fired on american cruisers in the gulf of tonken. so much for "safe out at sea".

Hawaii is also in the Pacific.

0 Replies

I'm surprised that those who weren't in Vietnam actually can summarily report that only a small portion of the military were guilty of attrocities. Many of my current friends and family were in Vietnam and they would beg to differ. My brother-in-law barely even wants to talk about it. If you want to believe those who have an blatantly obvious negative agenda that's there perogative.
Jon Stewart was obviously speaking about anyone else other than the Bought-and-Paid For Swiftboot (sic) crowd.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Many of the people who COMPRISE swiftvets were speaking out against Kerry. If O'Neill was recruited, it was after they heard of him already questioning Kerry publicly.

not the way i heard it, but i won't quibble over a semantic. the important thing is that o'neill went at kerry 35 years ago, then went to work for rehnquist, then mosied on down to tejas to be a lawyer. no mention for 35 years about kerry. but now, he's mightily pissed off. please.

by the way, the move to texas. doesn't it make you wonder that john ellis o'neill made his way from his hometown of san diego to washington and then down to midland texas, home of john ellis and john ellis bush, before setting up shop in the big city?

i guess ellis is a pretty common name and it's just a coincidence.

0 Replies

Gee, my father and uncle were both in Vietnam and neither of them saw any of the atrocoties that Kerry has claimed.

0 Replies

Re: Coastal Rat

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:
If you are trying to prove he volunteered for 2 tours of duty, I think you will have a hard time. He volunteered for military service, was assigned to the USS Gridley, then volunteered for Swift Boat duty and was sent to Nam after his training. None of that is a smear on Kerry. It is simply the facts.

i could be wrong, but i could swear that on kerry's site there is a doc that shows that kerry's "desired posting" was "pacific". since vietnam was in full swing, it's reasonable to think that was where he would be sent by that request.

by the way, it might be helpful to remember that the whole vietnam conflict began when north vietnames fast boats fired on american cruisers in the gulf of tonken. so much for "safe out at sea".

I don't think I ever said he was "safe out at sea". He was in a war zone. At least part of the time he was on the Gridley. And I can't say one way or the other what his desired posting was and I would agree with you 100% that if he requested a Pacific posting it only served to increase his odds of going to Nam.

Just so nobody misunderstands, I will say it again. I applaud his volunteering for the military along with all the others who volunteered. I only question some, repeat some of his recounting of his time spent there. But that in no way disparages (sp?) his willingness to go.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Gee, my father and uncle were both in Vietnam and neither of them saw any of the atrocoties that Kerry has claimed.

They were very lucky men.

The men I've known who served in Vietnam have some pretty horrific memories. Over the past two and a half decades, I've talked a few down from some awful nightmares based in the atrocities they saw. There is another poster here, who is partnered with a Vietnam/secret Cambodian mission vet - we have talked often about his ongoing difficulties with his experiences all of these years later. If there had been better counselling services available to him, both of their lives now would be much less painful.

Your father and uncle were indeed lucky in that regard.

0 Replies

Bush was also "safe at sea" and still is.

0 Replies

Re: Coastal Rat

McGentrix wrote:

Hawaii is also in the Pacific.

good one. you are right, sir.

and neither texas or alabama are.

you know, we're really scraping the barrel on this thread. we just keep going around and around.

whether or not a guy running for prez is a vet or not doesn't mean that much to me. but my conservative friends believe it does. except when it comes to dubya.

as i said in 1 of my first posts on a2k;

bottom line.... bush in 1968-69 - tejas. kerry in 1968-69 - vietnam.

dems da facts.

0 Replies

Yup. And to add to your bottom line Bush in 2004-08 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Kerry in 2004-08 - Not.

0 Replies

So the fact that Bush is currently president makes him a better choice? Why don't we just make it 8 year terms then.

0 Replies

Kerry's Interminable Four Months (Combat Tour My ...)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know