A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

okie, You need a lesson in logic; having no respect for Clinton or Kerry is not a democrat phenomenon. In other words, your statements have no meaning other than one person's opinion.

Your claim that the swift boat veterans are honorable people belies the true facts of those events. You claim that you and your father are "veterans," but fail to acknowledge that atrocities happen in wars. We are not 100 percent pure, honorable, or clean on the issue of atrocities perpetrated against our enemy or against our own. You need a reality check on life. I heard of first hand accounts of atrocious activities by Vietnam vets during that war. That you think none happened shows your ignorance. It happened during the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korean war, Vietnam war, and now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You are a total ignoramus.

Unless you were in Vietnam, I suggest you cool down your rhetoric. I was there 12 months, not 4, and I was in the infantry, in the jungles and rice fields, not in some base camp every night eating hot meals. I hesitate to talk about this, because it is not something to brag about, but I know what I am talking about, in terms of the general happenings in Vietnam, imposter. Kerry was there 4 months. I read all of the stuff about it. The Swift Boat people made sense and their accounts match reality. Kerry's does not. You can make your own character judgements, thats fine, but I would ask of you one thing, give the honorable men that served there, such as the Swift Boat guys credibility. The evidence that Kerry is off the beam, and always has been is what he told Congress when he came back and testified before Congress. The man is half kooky. And he was dumb enough to believe the phony stories of the Winter Soldier event. He is a nut, imposter. There are a few bad things that happen in war, but by and large, our soldiers performed decently and with honor in that war, as they are doing now in Iraq.

I have said this before, on another thread a long time ago, but in 12 months, I never saw one questionable action by any of our troops, imposter. For Kerry to go before Congress and testify about atrocities is a disgrace. It was an insult to every veteran, and the country. And he is still insulting the country. If Kerry would apologize and change his ways, and talk reasonably, then the past can be the past, but I am not going to sit here and be quiet when the guy continues his embarrassing attitude and then expects the country to elect him as president, I'm sorry, it is not going to happen.

This is a free country, he is free to insult anyone or everyone, but we also have the right to rebut his lies and try to make sure people know what did happen. Alot of my attitude is that of defending the country against losers as the John Kerrys of the world.

Refute anything from FactCheck.org with YOUR EVIDENCE.


Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record
August 6, 2004
Updated: August 22, 2004
Ad features vets who claim Kerry "lied" to get Vietnam medals. But other witnesses disagree -- and so do Navy records.
Summary
A group funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which former Swift Boat veterans claim Kerry lied to get one of his two decorations for bravery and two of his three purple hearts.

But the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen, and by Navy records.

One of the accusers says he was on another boat "a few yards" away during the incident which won Kerry the Bronze Star, but the former Army lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water that day backs Kerry's account. In an Aug. 10 opinion piece in the conservative Wall Street Journal, Rassmann (a Republican himself) wrote that the ad was "launched by people without decency" who are "lying" and "should hang their heads in shame."

And on Aug. 19, Navy records came to light also contradicting the accusers. One of the veterans who says Kerry wasn't under fire was himself awarded a Bronze Star for aiding others "in the face of enemy fire" during the same incident.

Analysis
"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" is a group formed March 23 after Kerry wrapped up the Democratic nomination. It held a news conference May 4 denigrating Kerry's military record and his later anti-war pronouncements during the 1970's. The group began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which 13 veterans variously say Kerry is "not being honest" and "is lying about his record." SBVT Ad: "Any Questions?"

John Edwards: "If you have any questions about what John Kerry is made of, just spend 3 minutes with the men who served with him."

(On screen: Here's what those men this of John Kerry)

Al French: I served with John Kerry.

Bob Elder : I served with John Kerry.

George Elliott: John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam.

Al French: He is lying about his record.

Louis Letson: I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury.

Van O'Dell: John Kerry lied to get his bronze star...I know, I was there, I saw what happened.

Jack Chenoweth: His account of what happened and what actually happened are the difference between night and day.

Admiral Hoffman: John Kerry has not been honest.

Adrian Lonsdale: And he lacks the capacity to lead.

Larry Thurlow: When he chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry.

Bob Elder: John Kerry is no war hero.

Grant Hibbard: He betrayed all his shipmates...he lied before the Senate.

Shelton White: John Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam.

Joe Ponder: He dishonored his country...he most certainly did.

Bob Hildreth: I served with John Kerry...

Bob Hildreth (off camera) : John Kerry cannot be trusted.

Where the Money Comes From

Although the word "Republican" does not appear in the ad, the group's financing is highly partisan. The source of the Swift Boat group's money wasn't known when it first surfaced, but a report filed July 15 with the Internal Revenue Services now shows its initial funding came mainly from a Houston home builder, Bob R. Perry, who has also given millions to the Republican party and Republican candidates, mostly in Texas, including President Bush and Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay, whose district is near Houston

Perry gave $100,000 of the $158,750 received by the Swift Boat group through the end of June, according to its disclosure report.

Perry and his wife Doylene also gave more than $3 million to Texas Republicans during the 2002 elections, according to a database maintained by the Institute on Money in State Politics. The Perrys also were among the largest Republican donors in neighboring Louisiana, where they gave $200,000, and New Mexico, where they gave $183,000, according to the database

At the federal level the Perrys have given $359,825 since 1999, including $6,000 to Bush's campaigns and $27,325 to DeLay and his political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority, according to a database maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Silver Star

Several of those who appear in the ad have signed brief affidavits, and we have posted some of them in the "supporting documents" section to the right for our visitors to evaluate for themselves.

One of those affidavits, signed by George Elliott, quickly became controversial. Elliott is the retired Navy captain who had recommended Kerry for his highest decoration for valor, the Silver Star, which was awarded for events of Feb. 28, 1969, when Kerry beached his boat in the face of an enemy ambush and then pursued and killed an enemy soldier on the shore.

Elliott, who had been Kerry's commanding officer, was quoted by the Boston Globe Aug 6 as saying he had made a "terrible mistake" in signing the affidavit against Kerry, in which Elliott suggested Kerry hadn't told him the truth about how he killed the enemy soldier. Later Elliott signed a second affidavit saying he still stands by the words in the TV ad. But Elliott also made what he called an "immaterial clarification" - saying he has no first-hand information that Kerry was less than forthright about what he did to win the Silver Star.

What Elliott said in the ad is that Kerry "has not been honest about what happened in Viet Nam." In his original affidavit Elliott said Kerry had not been "forthright" in Vietnam. The only example he offered of Kerry not being "honest" or "forthright" was this: "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.

In the Globe story, Elliott is quoted as saying it was a "terrible mistake" to sign that statement:

George Elliott (Globe account): It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here. . . . I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake.

In his second affidavit, however, Elliott downgraded that "terrible mistake" to an "immaterial clarification." He said in the second affidavit:

Elliott (second affidavit): I do not claim to have personal knowledge as to how Kerry shot the wounded, fleeing Viet Cong.

Elliott also said he now believes Kerry shot the man in the back, based on other accounts including a book in which Kerry is quoted as saying of the soldier, "He was running away with a live B-40 (rocket launcher) and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it." (The book quoted by Elliott is John F. Kerry, The Complete Biography, By The Reporters Who Know Him Best.)

Elliott also says in that second affidavit, "Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong." That statement is misleading, however. It mischaracterizes the actual basis on which Kerry received his decoration.

The official citations show Kerry was not awarded the Silver Star "for simply pursuing and dispatching" the Viet Cong. In fact, the killing is not even mentioned in two of the three versions of the official citation (see "supporting documents" at right.) The citations - based on what Elliott wrote up at the time - dwell mostly on Kerry's decision to attack rather than flee from two ambushes, including one in which he led a landing party.

The longest of the citations, signed by Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, commander of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam, describes Kerry as killing a fleeing Viet Cong with a loaded rocket launcher. It says that as Kerry beached his boat to attack his second set of ambushers, "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 hooch, and killed him, capturing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber."

okie, You calling Admiral Zumwalt a liar?

Two other citations omit any mention of the killing. One was signed by Admiral John J. Hyland, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, and the other was signed by the Secretary of the Navy. Both those citations say Kerry attacked his first set of ambushers and that "this daring and courageous tactic surprised the enemy and succeeded in routing a score of enemy soldiers." Later, 800 yards away, Kerry's boat encountered a second ambush and a B-40 rocket exploded "close aboard" Kerry's boat. "With utter disregard for his own safety, and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only ten feet away from the VC rocket position, and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy." In these citations there is no mention of enemy casualties at all. Kerry was cited for "extraordinary daring and personal courage . . . in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire."

okie, Are you calling Admiral Hyland and the Secretary of the Navy liars too?

Elliott had previously defended Kerry on that score when his record was questioned during his 1996 Senate campaign. At that time Elliott came to Boston and said Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star. And as recently as June, 2003, Elliott called Kerry's Silver Star "well deserved" and his action "courageous" for beaching his boat in the face of an ambush:

Elliott (Boston Globe, June 2003): I ended up writing it up for a Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second thoughts at all about that. . . . (It) was pretty courageous to turn into an ambush even though you usually find no more than two or three people there.

Elliott now feels differently, and says he has come to believe Kerry didn't deserve his second award for valor, either, based only on what the other anti-Kerry veterans have told him. He told the Globe Aug. 6:

Elliott: I have chosen to believe the other men. I absolutely do not know first hand.

On Aug. 22 an officer who was present supported Kerry's version, breaking a 35-year silence. William B. Rood commanded another Swift Boat during the same operation and was awarded the Bronze Star himself for his role in attacking the Viet Cong ambushers. He said Kerry and he went ashore at the same time after being attacked by several Viet Cong onshore.

Rood said he was the only other officer present. Rood is now an editor on the metropolitan desk of the Chicago Tribune, which published his first-person account of the incident in its Sunday edition. Rood said he had refused all interviews about Kerry's war record, even from reporters for his own paper, until motivated to speak up because Kerry's critics are telling "stories I know to be untrue" and "their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us."

okie, Were you there?

Rood described two Viet Cong ambushes, both of them routed using a tactic devised by Kerry who was in tactical command of a three-boat operation. At the second ambush only the Rood and Kerry boats were attacked.

Rood: Kerry, followed by one member of his crew, jumped ashore and chased a VC behind a hooch--a thatched hut--maybe 15 yards inland from the ambush site. Some who were there that day recall the man being wounded as he ran. Neither I nor Jerry Leeds, our boat's leading petty officer with whom I've checked my recollection of all these events, recalls that, which is no surprise. Recollections of those who go through experiences like that frequently differ.

With our troops involved in the sweep of the first ambush site, Richard Lamberson, a member of my crew, and I also went ashore to search the area. I was checking out the inside of the hooch when I heard gunfire nearby.

Not long after that, Kerry returned, reporting that he had killed the man he chased behind the hooch. He also had picked up a loaded B-40 rocket launcher, which we took back to our base in An Thoi after the operation.

Rood disputed an account of the incident given by John O'Neill in his book "Unfit for Command," which describes the man Kerry chased as a "teenager" in a "loincloth." Rood said, "I have no idea how old the gunner Kerry chased that day was, but both Leeds and I recall that he was a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore."

Okay, okie, provide us with your facts; not your .02c worth of personal opinion.

All everyone needs to know about Kerry and his service in Vietnam and his actions afterwards can be explained in one sentence.

All of you remember how it was "burned into his mind" his actions in Cambodia,even though there were no US troops anywhere near Cambodia when he claimed to have been there.

they're apparently excellent liars, as the facts are against them

~~~

and related to the original topic of the thread



http://www.factcheck.org/republican-funded_group_attacks_kerrys_war_record.html

sources



gotta give McCain his props. he doesn't go for the popular response. he says what he believes, and sticks with it.

But since he wasnt there,and didnt see the events in question,what makes his OPINION any more credible then the opinion given by other swift boat crewmen that have more knowledge about the events then McCain?

They weren't "there" with Kerry, either.

as Snood points out - as has been pointed out on this and a half dozen other threads (and innumerable other locations) neither were the fellas who felt they needed to offer their opinion.

so - when does Thurlow give his medal back?

~~~

And what are McCain and the other current Republican candidates up to these days ?

I don't have a lot to add, but I am wondering why this interminable discussion about Kerry is going on. Do we move on next to Mr Bush and Mr Cheney's military records during VN? (Come to think of it, best to be grateful that Cheney, given his gun skills, did not serve). None of them is running for anything.
Re medals. I seem to recall reading that the number of medals given out in VN was, per soldier, higher than in any other war. I can't cite a reference. A lot of them went to career officers, eager to pad their chests.
I do know of one member of A2K who, I think, alluded to the fact that he (although not an officer) came home with a Bronze Star. He seemed to suggest that he probably didn't deserve it but was, perhaps, in the right place at the right time as far as medal-earning goes. No details have ever been provided.

rjb, Once people start questioning the medals earned, it's a slippery -slope that has no end - whether earned or not. They devalue all medals, but conservatives like to "make a point" without understanding the consequences.

This is all we need to know about Kerry, which also makes it easier to understand the Swift Boat events.

"I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

"They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

Now, imposter, I see no logical reason why anyone claiming to care even a tiny bit about basic decency and this country would give the time of day to this man that perpetrated the above, let alone give him any respect, and desire to have such a man serve in the Senate, plus vote for him for president?

okie, You ae so wrong in so many topics, I'm weary of even trying to respond to your last post.

That Kerry presented to tell the truth to congress is a big reponsibility - especially about atrocities committed by US troops.

I wasn't in Vietnam, but I heard from Vietnam vets of similar types of stories related by Kerry.

If he lied, that's another story, but as far as I'm concerned, he exposed the truth. That you and some others do not wish to have the truth exposed say more about you than Kerry.

Are you aware that US soldiers also committed rape and murder in Iraq?

Can y'all go back on topic?

Thanks.

I, for example, would highlight this bit from earlier in the convo.


At which O'Bill, with some swagger, retorted:


Of course Cyclo didnt actually said the Dem voters were "super keen" on their choices; just that they actually did at least "like the majority of their candidates". As opposed to the Rep voters, who dont seem to particularly like any of theirs much.

As observations go, this seems a no-brainer, and Cyclo later showed up the numbers that illustrate his point convincingly:

I promise to try to stay on topic.

Its not you I worry about... :wink:

Actually, I dont mind digressions either, its just, this one's been enough no?

How partisan can a non-citizen be? Hillary is perhaps the least popular front runner in history. Tons of A2K's own Democrats have expressed their disdain for her candidacy (including the one I was arguing with) even as she continues to lead the polls and you want to pretend the Democrats like their choices? Knock it off Nimh. You of all people know better than that. I'd wager neither Democrats nor Republicans have been happy about their choices since Ronald Reagan's name was on the ballet. Can you show me any statistics that show a leading candidate from either party who polled better than his/her party affiliation in general since Reagan? Regardless; I provided sufficient evidence that shows NONE of the current Democratic crop meets this criterion. If the party polls better than the candidate; that is pretty clear evidence that the suggestion "they are happy with their choices" is pure nonsense.

(emphasis mine)

Seems to be an apples and oranges thing, OB. On the one hand you're saying that Democrats don't seem to be too happy with their candidate. On the other hand you're saying that, see, the general population sees an unnamed Democratic candidate in a more favourable light than any one of the actual candidates in the race, and therefore the first statement is true.

If you would say that, hey, from the reaction any of those Democratic candidates get, there doesn't seem to be too much of a reason why the Democrats should be satisfied with their candidates, that'd be a different matter.

Why not go with the actual poll that specifically asked that question...



... posted by Cycloptichorn a while ago?

(Of course you could still argue that "satisfied with" is not the same thing as "happy about".... But at least it shows that Democrats are way more satisfied with their candidates than Republicans are.)

Tons?? Are you implying they're fat? And since when does A2K represent the American public? If so than pollesters should ignore America and poll A2ker's.

When a2k represents the general public is when the earth will stay still. LOL