Larry Elder on Sen. Kerry

Well, is it important for a sitting president to tell the truth?

If Bush says Kerry served honorably, and you think that Bush is a good, truth-telling leader, then why don't you drop it?

Either Kerry was an honorable soldier, or Bush is lying and saying Kerry is an honorable soldier. Which one is it?

Cycloptichorn

So, ummm.... Why did Kerry seek a deferrment from going to Vietnam, then try to get into the inactive Naval reserve before so heroically throwing himself to the Vietnamese to be wounded from his own weapons?

Isn't that what people are are saying? That Kerry heroicly volunteered to be sent to Vietnam? I am sure I've seen that emphasized here in at least one or two places.

I suppose had he been married to one of his rich wives at the time, she probably could have used her connections to kleep him home, safe and servicing her instead of the Navy.

The only people who talk about heroism (while of course dripping with sarcasm) are the ones who are trying to defame Kerry. The record is the record. He got a student deferrment, finished Yale, tried to get one to study in Paris, couldn't, volunteered for the Navy. No matter how you slice it it still comes out better than Bush's and Cheney's. Why would you even bring this up McG if your purpose was not to continue to assert that Kerry did not serve honorably?

Straw-man.

Answer the question.

Well, is it important for a sitting president to tell the truth?

If Bush says Kerry served honorably, and you think that Bush is a good, truth-telling leader, then why don't you drop it?

Either Kerry was an honorable soldier, or Bush is lying and saying Kerry is an honorable soldier. Which one is it?

Cycloptichorn

STRAWMAN?!!? That's the basis for this entire thread!!

Read the opening post.

I did! The original post is a straw-man as well.

You can attack it from whatever position you want. Kerry went to Vietnam, he served there honorably, and then he came back. You can slant his intentions however you want; no matter what we're discussing, that would be happening on both sides anyways.

I just want someone to answer my question. If Bush is a truth-telling president that we should follow, and he says Kerry served honorably and the issue should be dropped, why aren't you people dropping it?

Is Bush lying about Kerry serving honorably, or is he telling the truth? Can anyone answer this?

Cycloptichorn

George,

Can you answer my question? Noone else seems to be able to.

If Bush is a truth-telling president that we should follow, and he says Kerry served honorably and the issue should be dropped, why aren't you people dropping it?

Is Bush lying about Kerry serving honorably, or is he telling the truth? Can anyone answer this?

Cycloptichorn

What does Bush's opinion have to do with anyone else's opinion Cycloptichorn?

Bush and his opinion has no bearing on this at all.

I suspect Bush is tring to stay (or just appear) above the fray.

One must also acknowledge that this is not Bush's problem. It is a problem John Kerry has with the great majority of his former shipmates and squadronmates in Vietnam. It is also a problem for the American electorate. George Bush's opinion on the issue doesn't matter. You are indulging in sophistry, and I think you know it.

That is in fact a false statement. The majority of Kerry's shipmates are not giving him any problem over this.

You are dead wrong Set. I said "shipmates and squadronmates" Moreover the overwhelming majority of his fellow officers and boat skippers oppose him.

duplicate

How about the ones who supported him just a few years ago, George?

After all, there are several statements (surely I don't need to point you to the nice NYT graph that you've already seen) where the vets directly contradict what they are saying today.

Considering that these same men are blasting Kerry for his inability to remember specific details, how can you trust someone who claims Kerry saved his life, and then 8 years later calls the guy a coward while he is running for president? Oh, yeah, and you just happened to get a lot of money from his political opponents. That couldn't have anything to do with it....

Cycloptichorn

Are you suggesting these men were paid off for their testimony? Do you have any proof? I find it far more plausible and likely that they are motivated by contempt and anger for the self-serving distortions that Kerry has used so much for his own benefit.

I don't think that incidental contradictions in the statements of Kerry or anyone else involved in this matter is the issue.

That Kerry was out to establish a military record useful in a future political career and that his launch point for it was hiis very prominent post war testimony was well known within and outside the Navy at the time. It is unfortunate that he chose to falsely slander those with whom he served, accusing them of atrocities that he much later admitted he never saw or for which he offered no evidence. The essential facts of three purple hearts, all written up by himself, awarded for trivial wounds in a short 13 week period, followed by an early release from active duty based on them, and then by his very public and false testimony before the Congress is more than enough to have earned him the lasting contempt of those with whom he served.

There is generally a fairly high degree of mutual loyalty for men from your own combat unit, and moste are and were reluctant to unduly criticize even those who exaggerated their exploits. It took a good deal of prevarication and grandstanding on Kerry's part to get such a large disparate group to act as they have.

George, no majority of Kerry's shipmates are disputing his account. Either you are being far more naive about the use of the language than your previous record here indicates one would expect; or, you are willfully being disingenuous about how the phrase "the great majority of his former shipmates and squadronmates" reads. Quite apart from your having failed to demonstrate that the "great majority" of his former squadronmates dispute him, you have not and cannot demonstrate this about his former shipmates. I think you know full well the impression such a statement gives, and i think you're letting your partisan beliefs run away with you. I'm no supporter of Kerry necessarily, but the incumbent is such an idiot, and his closest political cronies such a band of theives, that i'll vote for Kerry simply because he is not Bush. I haven't weighed in in these debates, but i don't intend to back down form pointing out that you have made a patently false statement.

Hasn't it already been established that many (most?) of these guys have been against Kerry ever since he came out against the war when he returned to the U.S.?

Doesn't that suggest they are less than objective 30+ years later? That they have an ax to grind? And it's one they've been grinding for three decades...

Whom exactly did he falsely slander? His testimony before the Senate clearly states that the actions he described were the reports of a multitude of veterans.

I agree that the SBVfT are not being paid off... in money. They are being paid in revenge.

Do you call it slander for Kerry to tell the truth about U.S. troops doing things they shouldn't have in Vietnam? Or to say that drug use was rampant?

There are those who would like these things to be hushed up. Hell, that's nothing new. They just now have a chance to attack the guy who didn't hush up, because he was against the war.

The issue isn't incidental contradictions. It is DIRECT contradictions by members of the SBVfT crew. How about George Elliot, who had great things to say about Kerry in the past - 'The fact he chased an armed enemy down is not something to be looked down upon, but an act of courage.' ?

Cycloptichorn

Well, George, than i'm certain your understanding of military culture will explain to you why the leader of the SBVFT, who commanded 115 squadron, wrote the after action report which states that there was enemy fire on the day Kerry is claimed to have pulled the SF man from the river within a week of the event, but now, 35 years later, denies that this event occurred.