TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Swift Change of Heart
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

BTW these people we speak of, that don't want Kerry as their president, are not scum.

Before this thread gets too ugly...

I think that all we've discovered is that depending on who you choose to believe, the validity of John Kerry, his medals and what you can conlude of him are highly contestable. Depending on who you give credibility to, as well as your own political stance and objectives, we're going to think differently.

Just as the Swift Boat Veterans aren't "scum," neither are the people behind moveon.org or the individuals raising hell over Bush's National Guard Service. These are all people trying to put forth their political motives, which they believe to be just, by giving us information they believe to be the real "thruth." There is no way to know what acutally happened on those boats in Vietnam, beacase we have a different account from every person that was there. In reality, I'm sure it's a mixture of all the stories, where Kerry wasn't Rambo incarnate as he would like us to believe, nor was he an overt coward as the Veterans would like us to think.

We could go back and forth forever trying to discount each other's sources and then resort to name calling but for both sides it is a futile debate. Do your research, believe who you think is right, don't let your own ideologies cloud your judgement, and go from there.

I personally believe that the account that Kerry gives us is not entirely truthful. He is a politician trying to win the presidency and he is going to bend the hell out of the truth to get there. To aid him in this quest he will find people to support him, riding his coat tails to where ever they see fit. On the other hand, I do commend him for his service, it is much more tangible than any Guard service Bush may or may not have been a part of. The main problem I see is that with a political story of this magnitude, you will have people trying to make names for themselves, and as part of that process no one will tell the complete truth. Such is politics, something I think we're forgetting is at the heart of this debate.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo so the Vietnam vets that oppose John Kerry are misguided (a polite way of saying naive or ignorant) because they couldn't appreciate the political nuance of his 1971 testimony regarding Nixon's failed strategy. (we're not even gonna mention his words and actions outside of that testimony that year. because if they couldn't appreciate the nuance of that, well to bad right?)

I see you are attempting to malign my argument in the same manner that you strive to portray Kerry's. Well at least I have the luxury of addressing your arguments directly ... now, so I'm saying that Vietnam vets opposed to Kerry are misguided? That's a cute misinterpretation. Here, let me quote myself:

quote:

If Vietnam veterans oppose Kerry under the mistaken impression that he stated in his testimony to congress that everybody in the military was guilty of war crimes or committing atrocities than they are MISGUIDED. http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...12&pagenumber=4

Now for a little English lesson. The "IF ... THEN" statement is what we call a conditional. The antecedant is the statement "If Vietnam veterans oppose Kerry under the mistaken impression that he stated in his testimony to congress that everybody in the military was guilty of war crimes or committing atrocities." The consequent is the statement, "they are MISGUIDED." Notice how the antecedant is NOT "if Vietnam veterans oppose Kerry." So if you cannot recognize this grammatical distinction than your argument is absolutely correct. Not only am I claiming that all Vietnam veterans are misguided for being anti-Kerry, but Kerry said every veteran of every war committed war crimes, and he also said that he invented the internet.

quote:

and occrider, i'm accusing YOU of taking his '71 testimony transcipt out of context, f**k it, you and opus. why, because the context in question has nothing to do with you or i or how you see it in hindsight, but the people who were there and some of those people are still pretty pissed off about being reminded of it. you may know a lot of things, but the Vietnam vets that take issue with John Kerry's abrupt tour of Vietnam and the actions he spearheaded afterwards have just a little more insight to complexities of having friends die and tortured at the hands of people that fed off of what John Kerry did and said.

Another fallacious arguement: appeal to emotion. You are attempting to justify criticism of Kerry's speech by describing the reaction from others rather than addressing the parts of Kerry's speech and providing contextual criticism that can be refuted or argued yourself. I suppose I can play the same game. Hmmmm ok well I'll just find someone who's suffered and been through unimaginable pain whose arguements you can't POSSIBLY refute because you have no way of understanding what he went through! Ok well how about former senator Max Cleland? Triple Amputee ... says bush is behind swift boat ads ... how can you refute his arguments??? He's a triple amputee for christ's sake, you couldn't even grasp the mental processes he utilizes to take a piss much less what he thinks about Vietnam nor the arguments that he makes. Here's a nice picture of him:



That should score me double points for this logical fallacy right? I like this game.

quote:

they oppose John Kerry for president, not because they feel they need opinion about Kerry to be heard (mind you there's thousands of them) but because they wish...??? yeah, i have yet to hear an alterior motive other than they want Bush to remain in office. which is stating the obvious because, lets face it, who else is running against Bush?

Wait a second ... you're refuting your own argument again. So these vets DON'T oppose Kerry because of their opinions on him??? They only oppose him because they want Bush to remain in office??? Hahaha lemme get this straight ... so all that jazz about him being unfit to command, the controversey about his medals, his credentials, etc. Is all MEANINGLESS? If they do indeed have that opinion it must not be that strong for them to feel that they need not express it as you so claim. The SOLE reason is to keep Bush in office? Finally, NOW we're getting somewhere. Glad we have that settled.

quote:

the swift boat vets deserve to be marginalized huh? again? man thats pretty fucked up if you ask me. "the swiftboat vets deserve to be marginalized" why not? they were all "marginalized" the first time they came back from Vietnam. they "deserve to be marginalized because they all lie to gain a partisan upperhand" am i hearing that right? they don't wish to be heard on their merits as officers and enlisted brothers in arms. they lie on a national spotlight to humiliate one person for political purposes. jesus you people kill me.

Oh goodness, looks like I'm going to have to quote myself again. According to my own statements I never said that they should be marginalized because they were marginalized when they came back from Vietnam. Again the appeals to emotion are not going to work. I said "The swiftboat veterans deserve to be marginilized for the simple reason that they are LYING." The fact that they may have been treated unfairly or poorly when they come back from the war does not warrant them special truth rings that legitamize everything they say in the present. Don't make me bring up the triple amputee again. But look, I'm sick of attempting to refute vague arguments, so why don't you attempt to give us some credible evidence for what these swift boat vets are saying? You specifically mention Kerry's bronze and silver star and raise doubt so make your case with supporting evidence. Who are you gonna use? Hoffman? O'Neill? Letson? I get the funny feeling you're going to continually make vague assertations without providing solid evidence so go to it. Give me something I can dig into. All these guys have been making contradictory statements on so many news interview shows it's rediculous. Bear in mind I shall hold you to equal standards of evidence, doubt, and logic when it comes to the accusations of Bush's purported AWOL. You may claim it's a Red Herring issues or whatever, but really, we wouldn't want to be inconsistent with our logic now would we?

By the way I didn't think that I would "pay" for my statements however, maybe I'm taking myself out of context.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Before this thread gets too ugly... I think that all we've discovered is that depending on who you choose to believe, the validity of John Kerry, his medals and what you can conlude of him are highly contestable. Depending on who you give credibility to, as well as your own political stance and objectives, we're going to think differently. Just as the Swift Boat Veterans aren't "scum," neither are the people behind moveon.org or the individuals raising hell over Bush's National Guard Service. These are all people trying to put forth their political motives, which they believe to be just, by giving us information they believe to be the real "thruth." There is no way to know what acutally happened on those boats in Vietnam, beacase we have a different account from every person that was there. In reality, I'm sure it's a mixture of all the stories, where Kerry wasn't Rambo incarnate as he would like us to believe, nor was he an overt coward as the Veterans would like us to think. We could go back and forth forever trying to discount each other's sources and then resort to name calling but for both sides it is a futile debate. Do your research, believe who you think is right, don't let your own ideologies cloud your judgement, and go from there. I personally believe that the account that Kerry gives us is not entirely truthful. He is a politician trying to win the presidency and he is going to bend the hell out of the truth to get there. To aid him in this quest he will find people to support him, riding his coat tails to where ever they see fit. On the other hand, I do commend him for his service, it is much more tangible than any Guard service Bush may or may not have been a part of. The main problem I see is that with a political story of this magnitude, you will have people trying to make names for themselves, and as part of that process no one will tell the complete truth. Such is politics, something I think we're forgetting is at the heart of this debate.

Neophono, I respect your desire to keep this thread civil, however, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to press you on my point. I'm simply confused at how you can place the same value or credibility upon some of the swiftboat veterans compared with accounts from those supporting Kerry's viewpoints. There are plenty of republican vets who were documented as being there and supporting Kerry's point of view. All the navy records support Kerry's points of views. All of Kerry's critics are shadowed by controversy, changing points of view, or simple incapability of knowing what they're claiming. If you think that I am wrong than simply point out who among the swiftboat vets has had impecuous credibility? Than compare that with those who were there and how NONE have been able to refute any portion of their stories. I'm simply confused ... face it, bush was not awol and Kerry was a war hero. Simple combination of rational logic and skepticism. However you wish to value those character traits is your own choice. However neither candidate is as demonic or incapable of good deeds as pundits attempt to portray.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I see you are attempting to malign my argument in the same manner that you strive to portray Kerry's. Well at least I have the luxury of addressing your arguments directly ... now, so I'm saying that Vietnam vets opposed to Kerry are misguided? That's a cute misinterpretation. Here, let me quote myself:

don't go tripping over your own flattery in a glib English lesson there, hero. i was refering to a statement made by Opus.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpusThat fact may certainly remain, as is their misguidedness toward Kerry being the culprit of their anger.

quote:

Another fallacious arguement: appeal to emotion. You are attempting to justify criticism of Kerry's speech by describing the reaction from others rather than addressing the parts of Kerry's speech and providing contextual criticism that can be refuted or argued yourself. I suppose I can play the same game. Hmmmm ok well I'll just find someone who's suffered and been through unimaginable pain whose arguements you can't POSSIBLY refute because you have no way of understanding what he went through! Ok well how about former senator Max Cleland? Triple Amputee ... says bush is behind swift boat ads ... how can you refute his arguments??? He's a triple amputee for christ's sake, you couldn't even grasp the mental processes he utilizes to take a piss much less what he thinks about Vietnam nor the arguments that he makes. Here's a nice picture of him: That should score me double points for this logical fallacy right?

i'm not gonna play this game with you dude. they are real people that take a real issue with the way Kerry wishes to present himself. they are as real and Cleland. sorry dude, but your way off base with this one

quote:

Wait a second ... you're refuting your own argument again. So these vets DON'T oppose Kerry because of their opinions on him??? They only oppose him because they want Bush to remain in office??? Hahaha lemme get this straight ... so all that jazz about him being unfit to command, the controversey about his medals, his credentials, etc. Is all MEANINGLESS? If they do indeed have that opinion it must not be that strong for them to feel that they need not express it as you so claim. The SOLE reason is to keep Bush in office? Finally, NOW we're getting somewhere. Glad we have that settled.

don't be juvenile, it's beneath you. FACT: they don't want Kerry to be president FACT: Kerry is now the nominee. you do the math

quote:

Oh goodness, looks like I'm going to have to quote myself again. According to my own statements I never said that they should be marginalized because they were marginalized when they came back from Vietnam. Again the appeals to emotion are not going to work. I said "The swiftboat veterans deserve to be marginilized for the simple reason that they are LYING." The fact that they may have been treated unfairly or poorly when they come back from the war does not warrant them special truth rings that legitamize everything they say in the present. Don't make me bring up the triple amputee again. But look, I'm sick of attempting to refute vague arguments, so why don't you attempt to give us some credible evidence for what these swift boat vets are saying? You specifically mention Kerry's bronze and silver star and raise doubt so make your case with supporting evidence. Who are you gonna use? Hoffman? O'Neill? Letson? I get the funny feeling you're going to continually make vague assertations without providing solid evidence so go to it. Give me something I can dig into. All these guys have been making contradictory statements on so many news interview shows it's rediculous. Bear in mind I shall hold you to equal standards of evidence, doubt, and logic when it comes to the accusations of Bush's purported AWOL. You may claim it's a Red Herring issues or whatever, but really, we wouldn't want to be inconsistent with our logic now would we?

look, you said

quote:

The swiftboat veterans deserve to be marginilized for the simple reason that they are LYING.

i feel they have been marginalized enough without people like you calling them liars. i don't need evidence for that and i don't care that you feel like your winning the game.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo don't go tripping over your own flattery in a glib English lesson there, hero. i was refering to a statement made by Opus.

Thanks for the clarifaction champ. Except for one thing ... your statement was made AFTER that statement from Opus, after your subsequent reply, and after the following statement from Opus which stated:

quote:

If those veterans believe that Kerry was out to dishonor them, rather than point directly to the government for the atrocities being committed, that is precisely what I am saying.

And after my statement:

quote:

I'm not sure what MisterOpus thinks, but I'll go out and say it. If Vietnam veterans oppose Kerry under the mistaken impression that he stated in his testimony to congress that everybody in the military was guilty of war crimes or committing atrocities than they are MISGUIDED.

So pick which one you're replying to ... they're essentially the same argument and anyone can look at the timestamps to verify. Tell ya what though ... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, retract my statement, and apologize. Ok champ?

quote:

i'm not gonna play this game with you dude. they are real people that take a real issue with the way Kerry wishes to present himself. they are as real and Cleland. sorry dude, but your way off base with this one

No you fail to understand the game ... you can't start it, and attempt to back out of it when I trump you. You said I'm taking things out of context because ALL those vets suffered so much, lost friends, yadda yadda yadda, and therefore I don't understand their situation. Why can't my vet, who is a triple amputee, suffered MORE, yadda yadda yadda, demonstrate how YOU are taking things out of context because YOU simply cannot understand his situation? This is ONLY a game because YOU brought it up. I'm on the same base as you champ.

quote:

don't be juvenile, it's beneath you. FACT: they don't want Kerry to be president FACT: Kerry is now the nominee. you do the math

I was under the impression that you had an epiphany with that remark ... my "juevenille" assumptions were no more prepubescent than what you were implying with that statement.

quote:

look, you said "swiftboat veterans deserve to be marginilized for the simple reason that they are LYING." i feel they have been marginalized enough without people like you calling them liars. i don't need evidence for that and i don't care that you feel like your winning the game.

"I feel that they have been marginalized enough without people like you calling them liars. I don't need evidence for that ..."??? I'm trying to understand this statement champ, perhaps you can enlighten me. It appears that you either:

A) Don't care that they are lying because they have been marginilized "enough."

B) Don't want to know if they are lying because they have been marginilized "enough".

or

C) Some completely unknown summation of your argument because ... well because you haven't clarified your position by standing by specific, quoted, and sourced statements that swiftboat vets have stated. One cannot refute an argument that never materializes right? Brilliant champ ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Thanks for the clarifaction champ. Except for one thing ... your statement was made AFTER that statement from Opus, after your subsequent reply, and after the following statement from Opus which stated: And after my statement: So pick which one you're replying to ... they're essentially the same argument and anyone can look at the timestamps to verify. Tell ya what though ... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, retract my statement, and apologize. Ok champ?

well take it up with Opus then because it's pretty obvious i could give a damn about how you consider Vets being misguided, but heres his take on it timestamped before you even confused yourself with him

quote:

If those veterans believe that Kerry was out to dishonor them, rather than point directly to the government for the atrocities being committed, that is precisely what I am saying.

quote:

No you fail to understand the game ... you can't start it, and attempt to back out of it when I trump you. You said I'm taking things out of context because ALL those vets suffered so much, lost friends, yadda yadda yadda, and therefore I don't understand their situation. Why can't my vet, who is a triple amputee, suffered MORE, yadda yadda yadda, demonstrate how YOU are taking things out of context because YOU simply cannot understand his situation? This is ONLY a game because YOU brought it up. I'm on the same base as you champ.

convince me they are not genuine in what they believe, otherwise it's still a game. why can't Cleland be genuine? i don't think i said he wasn't. on the contrary, i claimed he's as genuine as the Vets but supports the man that would be president.
you did, in fact, take Kerry's '71 testimony out of a real veterans contexed. real vets felt they were betrayed by that testimony, honest i'm not making it up. long before all this started. and not just his testimony, like i said, everthing he did that year real vets took real issue with it. and its come full circle hasn't it?

quote:

I was under the impression that you had an epiphany with that remark ... my "juevenille" assumptions were no more prepubescent than what you were implying with that statement.

i made no bones about it. they do not want Kerry in office. that was the point in my statement. sorry i had to "dumb it down" for you. i can't make it any clearer.

quote:

"I feel that they have been marginalized enough without people like you calling them liars. I don't need evidence for that ..."??? I'm trying to understand this statement champ, perhaps you can enlighten me.

i believe you are flat wrong calling them liars. they took time out of their lives and put their good name and legacy on the line in front of the nation. they say that John Kerry has not been honest with the people he is asking for help to put him in office. don't hurt youself trying to understand that. if you want to be enlightened talk to these people.

quote:

Daniel Aguilar, OSC, USNR-R Pat Alexander Roy Alexander* Robert Anderson, EN2, USN (Ret.) Kenneth J. Andrews, Lt.* Arturo Arias, QM2, USN (Ret.) Daniel V. Armstrong, BM2* Douglas Armstrong, Capt., USN (Ret.) Harry Ball, Cdr., USN (Ret.) Ray Lewis Ballew* Sonny Barber, USN (Ret.) John Bare Alexander Bass* George "M." Bates* Richard Beers* Paul L. Bennett, Cdr., USN* Edward J. �Lord Mort� Bergin, Capt., USNR (Ret.)* Henry �Buddy� Berman, QM2* Herb Blume, Lt. Barry Bogart, EN2* Bob Bolger Cdr., USN* (Ret.) M.T. Boone* Benny Booth David Borden* Carl Bowman Vern Boyd* David M. Bradley, LCdr.* Robert Bradley, Lt. USNR - inactive Robert �Friar Tuck� Brant, Cdr. USN (Ret.)* Kenneth Briggs* Carlyle J. Brown, EN2* Donald Brown, RD3 Kenneth "Buck" Buchholz, GMM3* Michael C. Burton Tom Burton Joe Cahill, Jr., Lt.* Jack L. Carlson, Lt., USNR* James Carter Billy Carwile, EN3* Virgil Chambers, RD3 Jack Chenoweth, Capt., USNR, (Ret.)* William Colgan, RD3* Bill Collins* Daniel K. Corbett, Lt., USNR* James M. Corrigan, QM3* Terry Cosstello, Capt., USN (Ret.)* Tom Costarino Toi Dang, GM3 John H. Davis, Lt.* William K. Daybert,Cdr.* James Deal* Richard Dodson, Capt., USN (Ret.) John Dooley, Cdr., USN (Ret.)* Dale Duffield, CWO USN (Ret.)* Robert G. Elder, Lt.* George M. Elliott, Capt. USNR (Ret.)* Bill Eshelman Claude Farmer, Cdr., USNR (Ret.) Michael Fasold William Ferris, Capt., USNR (Ret.) Wallace Benjamin Foreman, QM1, USN (Ret.)* William T. Ferris, Capt. USNR (Ret.)* James Foster, GMG1, USN (Ret.) William E. Franke, Lt.jg* Robert L. Franson, BMCS (SW)* Alfred J. French, III, Capt., JAGC, USNR (Ret.)* Paul F. Fulcomer, RD3* Ray Fuller, GMG3* Steve Fulton, Cdr., USN (Ret.)* Mike Gann, Capt., USNR (Ret.)* Steve Gardner* Bill Garlow* Les Garrett* Tony Gisclair, BOSN2* Robert Gnau, QM2* Donald Goldberg* Morton Golde, Cdr. USN (Ret.)* Kenneth Golden* Gerald L. Good, Lt. USN* Roy Graham John C. Graves* Charles E. Green, ENCM, USN (Ret.)* Dennis L. Green, GMG* H.C. Griffin, Jr., Lt. USNR* I.B.S. (Boyd) Groves, Jr.* Charles R. Grutzius, Capt. USNR (Ret.)* F.L. Skip "Mustang Sally" Gunther, Lt. USN* Louis Hahn ETCM (SW) USN (Ret.) Bill Halpin, Lt. USNR (Ret.)* Don C. Hammer, Lt.* Rock Harmon* Keith C. Harris, RD2* Stewart M. Harris, Lt., USN* Stirlin Harris, BM2* Gene Hart, RD3* Bob Hastings* Curt Hatler* John Hecker, RD3* Chuck Herman, RD3* Raul Herrera* Tom Herritage* Grant "Skip" Hibbard* Bill Hickey Rocky Hildreth* Gary Hite Jim Hoffmann, RD3 Roy Hoffmann, Adm., USN (Ret.)* William P. Holden, Capt., USN (Ret.)* Wayland Holloway, Lt. USNR* Duane Holman, QM2 Robert Hooke, Lt.* Bill Hoole Andy Horne* John Howell* Warren Hudson* Charles W. Hunt, EN3* Robert Hunt* Gail E. "Ike" Ikerd, Cdr. (Ret.)* Bert Jeffries, QM3 Richard Jenkins John Paul Jones, QM3* Tom Jones* Eddie Kajioka ENCS, USN (Ret.)* John L. Kipp, Cdr., USN (Ret.)* Thomas H. Klemash* Kenneth Knipple, EN1* Robert Koger, QM2* Mike Kovanen, RD3* Bob Kreyer, GMG2* Jack K. Lane, GMG3* William T. Langham* William Lannom* Alan Lapat Joseph R. Lavoie, II CWO2 (BOSN), USN (Ret.)* Louis Letson, LCdr., USN (Ret.)* Jim Madden, RD3* William S. Mann, Jr., Lt.jg* Jim Marohn, GMG3* Douglas Martin, Lt. USNR* Tom Mason, Lt.* Donald Matras, EN2 (Ret.)* Thomas Mason, Lt.* Louis Masterson* Donald Matras, EN3 Richard McFarland, Lt. USNR* Kenneth B. McGhee* James McNeal, ENC* Errol Meleander, Cdr., USN (Ret.)* Jack Merkley, Lt.* James M. Miller* John Miller, ENC (Ret.) Martin Miller, ENC (Ret.)* Marc Milligan, GMG2* Benjamin A. Montoya, QM3* Edward Morgan, Capt. USN* Edgar (Ed) M. Morrill, Jr.* Tom Morrill, EN3* Wayne H. Moser* Kurt Moss, Lt. J.G.* Frank Mueller* Marc Milligan, GMG2* Ed Mundy* Van Odell, GMG1 Richard Olsen, Lt.* Richard O'Mara, RD2, USN John O'Neill, Lt., USN, (Ret.)* Albert Owens* Tedd Peck, Capt. USNR (Ret.)* Richard Pees, Lt., USNR James Penkert, ENC Thomas Petersik Robert Phalen, GMG2* Charles Plumley* Joseph L. Ponder, GMG-2, USN (Ret.)* Chuck Rabel* Bob Reller Steve Renfro, RD3, USN (Ret.) Don Renshaw, EN2, USN PCF 93 Frank Rockwell Bill Rogers, Lt.* Patrick Sage GMG3* Gary W. Sallee, BM2* Burke Salsi, RD2 Joe Sandoval, GMG3* Jimmy W. Sanford, RD3* Robert Scattergood* Jim Schneider, EN2* Clair J. (Pete) Schrodt, Capt. USN (Ret.)* Jack Shamley* Patrick Sheedy, Cdr., USN (Ret.)* Paul Shepherd, QM2* Robert B. Shirley, Lt.jg* William Shumadine* Stanley G. Simonson, GMG2* John Singleton, ENC Darryl Skuce, GMG2* John J. Skura* Gerald H. Smith* Bob Smith, GMG2 Gerald Smith Roy Smith* B. Tony Snesko BM2* Mike Solhaug* Dennis Spranger Jack Spratt, LCDR* David R. Stefferud, Capt., USN (Ret.)* James Steffes* Fred E. Stith, USN (Ret.)* Lawrence Stoneberg, Lt. USN (Ret.)* Weymouth Symmes, RDM* Tony Taylor W.P. "Sonny" Taylor* Dewey Thedford James P. Thomas* Eldon Thompson, Lt.jg* Larry Thurlow, Lt.jg Joseph Timmons, RD3, USN Charles R. Tinstman, ENC* Gary E. Townsend* William F. Trainer* Mark Tuft, Capt., USN (Ret.) Michael Turley, BM2* Chris J. Vedborg, RD3* Jeffrey M. Wainscott, Lt.jg* David Wallace* Greg Ward, EN2* Larry J. �Waz� Wasikowski, Cdr. U.S. Naval Reserve* Pete Webster* Robert T. Wedge, Jr., QM1, USN (Ret.)* Steven Weekley, GMG, QM3* George Wendell, En1, USN (Ret.) Bruce Wentworth, Lt., USNR George H. White, II* R. Shelton White, Lt.* Gary K. Whittington, EN3* James D. Wiggins* Tom Wilkins Thomas A. Withey, Lt.* Bernard Wolff* Thomas W. Wright, Cdr., USN (Ret.)* John Wyatt, GMG* John Yeoman, Lt.* Ex Officio (other military): Ross Barker, Capt. USN (Ret.) Joe Cantrell, Lt.jg, USNR Allan Clapp, ETR3, USN George Clatterbuck, CMSgt. USAF, Ret. Tony DeLuna David Desiderio, Cdr., USCG (Ret.) Verne DeWitt, MR1 Jim Fitzgerald Monte Gluck Don Higgins Larry Hobson Robert Johnson Walter Jones, USMC Adrian Lonsdale, Capt., USCG (Ret.) David P. Marion, CPT Infantry, US Army* Larry Meyer* Benjamin A. Montoya, QM3* Denny O'Brien Cordelia Ogrinz, in memory of her brother Alexander J. Ogrinz, III, Lt.* Rex Rectanus, VADM, USN (Ret.)* Skip Ridley* Jennings Rogerson II, Capt. USMC* (Ret.) John Slagle, Special agent, USBP (Ret.) Patrick Stevenson, Army Special Forces (Ret.) Emmett Tidd, Vice Admiral, USN, (Ret.)* Leslie "Butch" Vorphal, RD3, USN PCF 3 Steve Watts, Army Dennis D. Willess, EN3, Army Infantry* Raymond Wroten, SSgt., USMC (Ret.) James M. Zumwalt in memory of Elmo Zumwalt, Sr. and Elmo Zumwalt, Jr, his father and brother* ---------- * = signed original letter, presented May 4, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo well take it up with Opus then because it's pretty obvious i could give a damn about how you consider Vets being misguided, but heres his take on it timestamped before you even confused yourself with him

Fine so you're going to use his arguments as to what your replying to ... now why don't you address the argument itself? Your original statement:

"so the Vietnam vets that oppose John Kerry are misguided (a polite way of saying naive or ignorant) because they couldn't appreciate the political nuance of his 1971 testimony regarding Nixon's failed strategy. (we're not even gonna mention his words and actions outside of that testimony that year. because if they couldn't appreciate the nuance of that, well to bad right?)"

Is still inaccurate regardless of whether you're applying it to MisterOpus's statement or mine. Please see my original argument.

quote:

convince me they are not genuine in what they believe, otherwise it's still a game. why can't Cleland be genuine? i don't think i said he wasn't. on the contrary, i claimed he's as genuine as the Vets but supports the man that would be president. you did, in fact, take Kerry's '71 testimony out of a real veterans contexed. real vets felt they were betrayed by that testimony, honest i'm not making it up. long before all this started. and not just his testimony, like i said, everthing he did that year real vets took real issue with it. and its come full circle hasn't it?

No no, you misunderstand the game. According to your system of credibility, Cleland is MORE genuine than any of the vets you utilize because he has obviously suffered more. Therefore unless you have a triple amputee backing you up, your arguments, and all of the statements put forth by your vets are insignificant. Look, I can't possibly ridicule this system of logic any further ... if you want to continue on the meaningless appeal to emotion fallacy than show me a vet who has suffered more than Cleland.

quote:

i made no bones about it. they do not want Kerry in office. that was the point in my statement. sorry i had to "dumb it down" for you. i can't make it any clearer.

No the point of your statement was that the primary concern of these vets was to keep Bush in office regardless of ALL OTHER CONCERNS. Look I'll quote you:

quote:

i have yet to hear an alterior motive other than they want Bush to remain in office.

Your point can't be made any "clearer" than your OWN WORDS.

quote:

i believe you are flat wrong calling them liars. they took time out of their lives and put their good name and legacy on the line in front of the nation. they say that John Kerry has not been honest with the people he is asking for help to put him in office. don't hurt youself trying to understand that. if you want to be enlightened talk to these people.

So you believe I'm wrong in calling them liars. Well for christ's sake you've been completely absent in making their case so WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE THAT ESTABLISHES THEIR CREDIBILITY????? Furthermore, you can make your silly appeals to emotion all you want, it doesn't matter because I only have one person you need to talk to: Max Cleland. And he trumps your entire list because he's suffered more! However, the crux of the entire argument is simpe: The Vietnam vets who are in a position to provide insight on Kerry's war record categorically side with Kerry. You have made little to no effort in addressing their arguments, you have made little to no effort in addressing the majority of MisterOpus's arguments, and you have made little to no efforts in addressing my arguments. Stop trying to obfuscate the issue and start debating facts. Thanks champ.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo well take it up with Opus then because it's pretty obvious i could give a damn about how you consider Vets being misguided, but heres his take on it timestamped before you even confused yourself with him

I feel so honored to be quoted so often.

I stand by my statement, PROVIDED that this is the category from which any of these vets fall under.

quote:

convince me they are not genuine in what they believe, otherwise it's still a game.

Why is it up to Occ or anyone else for that matter to convince you that which you are supposed to demonstrate?

You just walked right into yet another logical fallacy - attemping to prove a negative. The burden is not on your debator to prove event "X" is true or not. Rather, the onus is on the individual making the claim to demonstrate event "X" is true or false.

So the onus is on you to demonstrate exactly what they believe as well as demonstrate the content of their beliefs is logically consistent. As of yet you have failed to do so.

quote:

why can't Cleland be genuine? i don't think i said he wasn't. on the contrary, i claimed he's as genuine as the Vets but supports the man that would be president.

Occ demonstrated where you're running into problems with your logic here.

quote:

you did, in fact, take Kerry's '71 testimony out of a real veterans contexed.

Explain. Be specific. We have successfully demonstrated the reverse - that some veterans have taken his testimony out of context, and what's worse, they've willfully done so in attempts to further smear Kerry.

YOU need to demonstrate how exactly Occ took his testimony out of context. The specific passage which Occ cited IS the passage in question, and it IS the passage being utilized (i.e. distorted) by some veterans. If Occ took his testimony out of context, please explain the FULL context in detail.

quote:

real vets felt they were betrayed by that testimony, honest i'm not making it up. long before all this started. and not just his testimony, like i said, everthing he did that year real vets took real issue with it. and its come full circle hasn't it?

Logical fallacies: Appeal to emotion, argument from authority

You have yet to argue why they feel as they do. Please do so now.

quote:

i believe you are flat wrong calling them liars. they took time out of their lives and put their good name and legacy on the line in front of the nation. they say that John Kerry has not been honest with the people he is asking for help to put him in office.

I would certainly appreciate what these Swifties would say IF they had consistency in what they are saying. As it stands now, the 13 or so individuals who say they've actually served tours with Kerry and were part of his wounds and medals have been riddled and caught with contradictory statements, both in what they have said and what has been reported by Navy records. What's worse, a number of so-called eyewitness Swifties for Truth have finally confessed to actually not being TRUE eyewitnesses! Ain't that great? Not only have some been caught contradicting themselves with previous statements of praises for Kerry, but a few have been caught lying about actually being there to witness the events!

So when someone is caught lying about an event in efforts to hurt the credibility of someone else, doesn't that kinda disturb you a little about these guys?

quote:

don't hurt youself trying to understand that. if you want to be enlightened talk to these people.

You know, I kinda find something funny about this list of some 254 veterans. My question is this - is this all the Smear Boat private investigators could muster? I mean really, how many veterans do we have from the Vietnam War? Let's keep something in mind about these guys listed here - only a handful of 13 or so ACTUALLY claim to have been witnesses to the events of Kerry's actions in question, and as it's been demonstrated, this small handful have been riddled with lies and inconsistencies in their own statements. That leaves only about 241 or so WHO WERE NEVER involved with any of Kerry's actions in the war.

Now that's not what the Smear Boaters would want you to initially believe, but they will eventually concede that point and mention that the rest of the Smear boys have something against what Kerry stood for AFTER the war (actually the 13 supposed eyewitnesses do too). This was the basis of their 2nd attack ad, which is what we've discussed so far. You, however, have yet to present their arguments logically. Instead, you've relied on fallacious arguments of emotion, authority, and population to support your assertions. That will not work here - you must present the content of their arguments logically here. If you cannot do so, simply retract your argument until you can.

Ya know, after what Bob Dole said the other day, I really don't know whether some of these guys have bled enough to deserve a purple heart:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/wounded/gallery.htm

I mean, only one freakin' eye blown out?

C'mon.

My grandfather still has all his limbs.

He should probably give back his purple heart too.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSZ Ya know, after what Bob Dole said the other day, I really don't know whether some of these guys have bled enough to deserve a purple heart: http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/wounded/gallery.htm I mean, only one freakin' eye blown out? C'mon.

Well I certainly think that some of these so-called "wounds" on these guys you depicted are certainly debateable. Take a limb being blown off, for example - IF that limb was cleanly blown off, and IF the shrapnel and explosive behind that shrapnel was hot enough, then technically speaking there MAY have possibly been NO blood spilled as the limb was seared right off.

And if that's the case, then technically speaking, and by the rhetoric the Smear Boaters and fellow conservative supporters are utilizing against Kerry, SOME of these boys and gals certainly don't deserve their Purple Hearts now, do they? I mean, no blood spilled, no Purple Heart, right?

But I think we shouldn't let them go unrewarded, however. We can certainly track down that GOP delegate in NY who was handing out band-aids with Purple Hearts on them, and we can certainly give these brave soldiers this gift instead. I'm sure they would appreciate the jesture.

I mean, it's only fair that they receive something, right?

Kerry's penchant for embelishment should be without doubt when addressing his Vietnam war record. any sane person should realize that. and if that isn't an emotional plea, please sue me.

his first purple heart. an embelishment. it something you would want others to believe noble, but integrity not in the eye of the beholder in this case. again, an emotional plea but emotion is something one would consider when electing a president. so consider this. (this has been hashed here before)

quote:

Washington Post, regarding the MORNING of March 13th: 1. As they were heading back to the boat, Kerry and Rassmann decided to blow up a five-ton rice bin to deny food to the Vietcong. In an interview last week, Rassmann recalled that they climbed on top of the huge pile and dug a hole in the rice. On the count of three, they tossed their grenades into the hole and ran. Evidently, Kerry did not run fast enough. "He got some frags and pieces of rice in his rear end," Rassmann said with a laugh. "It was more embarrassing than painful." At the time, the incident did not seem significant, and Kerry did not mention it to anyone when he got back on the boat. An unsigned "personnel casualty report," however, erroneously implies that Kerry suffered "shrapnel wounds in his left buttocks" later in the day, following the mine explosion incident, when he also received "contusions to his right forearm." [ie, a BRUISE] From the navy's Spot Report of the AFTERNOON of March 13th; after the river mine explosion under Lt. Pees' PCF 3 boat: LTJG JOHN F. KERRY, USNR, HSHRAPNEL WOUND LEFT BUTTOCK AND CONTUSION RT. FOREARM (MINOR);

if Kerry had not made himself to be the Vietnam war hero nominee I would care even less about his first PH. we all know that after the DNC this will not be the case anymore.

Kerry's third PH was his ticket home. an inference that is obvious in its description that most of us would have probably embelished ourselves. i know i would. that is definately an emotional plea.
consider for yourselves because Kerry has already backpedaled on that one. here is one of the many proves.
http://www.massnews.com/2004_editio...urple_heart.htm

the next embelishment is more humorous than relevant within the scope of a war record, but is just as insightful to the mind of a man that enjoys making things more than they really are. the following is a Humane Society questionaire that Kerry filled out as a Senator back in '85 or something like that. before reading this remember there is no record of his boat hitting more than one mine. he clearly lied to the Humane Society. why? who knows and who cares right? well, if your looking for patterns of self serving embelishment to influence your vote for a "Vietnam war hero president" shit like this is invaluable.

quote:

Do you have any pets that have made an impact on you personally? 1. I have always had pets in my life and there are a few that I remember very fondly. When I was serving on a swiftboat in Vietnam, my crewmates and I had a dog we called VC. We all took care of him, and he stayed with us and loved riding on the swiftboat deck. I think he provided all of us with a link to home and a few moments of peace and tranquility during a dangerous time. One day as our swiftboat was heading up a river, a mine exploded hard under our boat. After picking ourselves up, we discovered VC was MIA. Several minutes of frantic search followed after which we thought we'd lost him. We were relieved when another boat called asking if we were missing a dog. It turns out VC was catapulted from the deck of our boat and landed confused, but unhurt, on the deck of another boat in our patrol.

do i have to produce hard evidence refuting the now, world famous, "Christmas in Cambodia" statements on the Senate floor and in the Boston Globe? man, i hope some of you guys aren't ingnorant to that fact seeing how the Kerry campaign has backpedaled on that one too.

as far as his second PH, his Bronze Star and Silver Star...well, i gonna leave it up to you. the eyewitnesses the crewmates, the right and the left are still hashing it out. thats too bad because i really want to get at the bottom of them before November so John Kerry can can present himself as a Senator worthy of the highest office, as opposed to a Vietnam veteran worthy of the highest office.

Vietnam veterans are not misguided in their opinion of John Kerry.

we are misguided in our opinion of John Kerry.


P.S. Halliburton paid me to say this

Well leave it to a a bunch of "misguided" Vietnam veterans to to take it up a notch.

the following letter will now challenge John Kerry to confront his misrepresentations about his bid for the presidency. in return the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth will pull their ads for good.

quote:

The following letter was delivered to the Kerry Campaign today by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. 1. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth P.O. Box 26184 Alexandria, Virginia 22313 August 31, 2004 Senator John Kerry 901 15th Street NW Washington, DC 20005 Dear Senator Kerry: As you prepare for your address before the American Legion in Nashville, Tennessee, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth encourages you to use this opportunity to clarify your actions in Vietnam and your statements about your fellow Veterans and shipmates when you returned home. Since you have made your four-month tour in Vietnam the centerpiece of your campaign, we respectfully insist that you be truthful. The public is owed a full and honest accounting of your actions. Veterans are owed an apology from you and an acknowledgement that there was no basis in fact for the accusations you made against them. We urge you to: 1. Apologize for your conduct once you returned from Vietnam. Your exaggerated testimony before the US Senate; the blanket indictment of your fellow veterans; throwing away medals and ribbons; all of these actions dishonored America and the armed forces. Your rhetoric and actions were not only wrong, they aided the enemy and brought great pain to POW's, veterans and their families. 2. Clarify the conflicting accounts involving the Bay Hap River incident of March 13, 1969 (Bronze Star and 3rd Purple Heart). You have now described three different versions of this incident. In the first version of this incident presented during the Democrat National Convention, you stated: "No man left behind," suggesting to the American people that you alone stayed on the river to rescue Mr. Rassmann. Later, when forced to acknowledge conflicting eyewitness testimony from fellow swift boat veterans, you said that your boat left the scene to return moments later to retrieve Jim Rassmann from the water. Yet, in another version of the same incident discovered in the Congressional Record, you reported that your boat struck a mine and Rassmann fell off the boat. Mr. Kerry, please explain to your fellow veterans and the American people which version is the truth. 3. Affirm that the injuries for which you received your purple hearts never required any medical treatment beyond perhaps a bandage and that, in all instances, these injuries were self-inflicted and came from your own weapon. Further, that if any of these purple hearts were falsely awarded, that you would not have been eligible to leave Vietnam after serving only four months. 4. Acknowledge what your own biographer is now saying, that the Christmas in Cambodia claim is "obviously wrong," that you were never in Cambodia over Christmas or any other time during your brief, four-month tour in Vietnam and that your statements before the United States Senate in 1986 were false. If you undertake these steps we will be satisfied that the American public has been sufficiently apprised as to these aspects of your career, and we will discontinue the media advertisements you have sought so fervently to silence. Please know that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are eager to close our own personal chapters on Vietnam and instead focus on the war we're currently fighting � the ongoing war on terrorism. In the absence of full public disclosure and a public apology, we will continue efforts to carry our message to an ever-expanding base of grassroots supporters. Senator Kerry, we want to get Vietnam behind us. But, we can only do so if the truth is told. We respectfully await your reply. Sincerely, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

so to answer this threads statement of "Swift Boat Change of Heart", this just put a big sock in it

http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527....asp?cycle=2004

quote:

Swift Boats vs. the Media 1. When the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth first got started, they probably thought they were taking on John Kerry. Boy, where they wrong! The press has made every attempt to tie the veterans to Republicans, repeatedly noting that it got started with a generous gift from Republican donor Bob Perry: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is registered with the Federal Election Commission as a so-called 527 organization, not affiliated with any party. It got off the ground with a $100,000 donation from Texas homebuilder Bob J. Perry, a prominent Republican donor. A search of Perry's donations for the last three election cycles shows that he is indeed generous, giving a total of $188,000 to various Republican candidates and causes. And yet I never seem to read that MoveOn.org is a Democrat organization. I wonder why. And calling Perry a "generous donor" is really a matter of perspective. Take a look at the 1. top 25 contributors to 527s for the 2004 election cycle. Who do you think tops the list? George Soros? No, Soros is second with a measely $12.6 million, well behind Peter Lewis who has thrown out over $14 million. How far down the list must you go to find a conservative? Carl Lindner is tied for tenth place just a little over one million dollars. Paul Singer is tied for 22nd with half that. Together, they account for just 2.6% of the $57,713,283 donated to 527s by the top 25 donors. Liberals account for 97.4% of the top donations to 527s, giving over $56 million. Yet they myth continues that it is the Republican Party that is the party of the rich. Roy F. Hoffman, a retired admiral and chairman of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, said the first TV ad, which ran for one week in Ohio, Wisconsin and West Virginia at a cost of $550,000, got so much national news attention that it generated an additional $400,000 from 8,000 donors around the country.

"Liberals account for 97.4% of the top donations to 527s, giving over $56 million"

i just don't understand the game? your right, it baffles me. how can such a small group of "misguided" Vietnam vets with so little money cause such a ruckus in a world dominated by millions in liberal handouts? not to mention the liberal media. i'm truly vexxed

i got an idea why. maybe its 'cause the TRUTH has been and always will be a bargain!

sounds corny doen't it?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Kerry's penchant for embelishment should be without doubt when addressing his Vietnam war record. any sane person should realize that. and if that isn't an emotional plea, please sue me. his first purple heart. an embelishment. it something you would want others to believe noble, but integrity not in the eye of the beholder in this case. again, an emotional plea but emotion is something one would consider when electing a president. so consider this. (this has been hashed here before) quote: quote: Washington Post, regarding the MORNING of March 13th: 1. As they were heading back to the boat, Kerry and Rassmann decided to blow up a five-ton rice bin to deny food to the Vietcong. In an interview last week, Rassmann recalled that they climbed on top of the huge pile and dug a hole in the rice. On the count of three, they tossed their grenades into the hole and ran. Evidently, Kerry did not run fast enough. "He got some frags and pieces of rice in his rear end," Rassmann said with a laugh. "It was more embarrassing than painful." At the time, the incident did not seem significant, and Kerry did not mention it to anyone when he got back on the boat. An unsigned "personnel casualty report," however, erroneously implies that Kerry suffered "shrapnel wounds in his left buttocks" later in the day, following the mine explosion incident, when he also received "contusions to his right forearm." [ie, a BRUISE] From the navy's Spot Report of the AFTERNOON of March 13th; after the river mine explosion under Lt. Pees' PCF 3 boat: LTJG JOHN F. KERRY, USNR, HSHRAPNEL WOUND LEFT BUTTOCK AND CONTUSION RT. FOREARM (MINOR); if Kerry had not made himself to be the Vietnam war hero nominee I would care even less about his first PH. we all know that after the DNC this will not be the case anymore.

And once again this isn�t his first purple heart. This incident concerned his third purple heart in enemy action that earned him the bronze star. While it is correct that Kerry�s injury to the buttocks were acquired earlier that day, the impression thatt Kerry did not legitimately earn the purple heart is still false. The purple heart was drawn up on injuries he sustained in the mine explosion:

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFi...ple%20Heart.pdf

And furthermore, the bronze star citation ONLY describes the injuries he sustained in the mine explosion. Furthermore, the bronze star citation elaborates on the wound:

quote:

Liutenant (jg) Kerry directed his gunners to provide suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain and with disregard for his personal safety, he pulled the man aboard. http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFi...onze%20Star.pdf

Therefore A) Kerry sustained wounds that would have qualified him for his third purple heart regardless of the wounds to his buttocks. B) This purple heart is not the one that is in contention.

quote:

Kerry's third PH was his ticket home. an inference that is obvious in its description that most of us would have probably embelished ourselves. i know i would. that is definately an emotional plea. consider for yourselves because Kerry has already backpedaled on that one. here is one of the many proves. http://www.massnews.com/2004_editio...urple_heart.htm

Again, this is his FIRST purple heart � his FIRST. If you are going to attempt the criticize the man on what you perceive to be falsehoods you might want to make sure you have an accurate grasp of the events yourself. And I addressed this purple heart issue before. Kerry has always asserted that he was unsure where the shrapnel came from:

quote:

"Kerry has said he was wounded by a piece of shrapnel as he and his crew engaged Vietcong fleeing on a beach. Kerry has said he was uncertain where the shrapnel came from." http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht...veterans05.html

And furthermore, the possibility that the wound may have been afflicted by friendly fire, or whether it was self-afflicted does NOT disqualify Kerry from the purple heart. See my post on the first page of this thread:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...12&pagenumber=1

Look at the the purple heart regulations:

http://www.purpleheart.org/Awd_of_PH.htm

And lastly, take the issue up with how the military awards purple hearts, and start taking them away from a whole shitload of Vietnam vets:

quote:

The award came from the Naval Support Facility in Saigon � issued without any evident formal protest at the time from Hibbard, Letson or other commanders. Neither the slightness of Kerry's wound nor its murky origins would have likely disqualified him, said Shelby Jean Kirk, a retired civilian director of the Bureau of Naval Operations awards branch. The most critical element in an award decision was "action against the enemy." Conflicting battle accounts were not uncommon, and when Navy awards personnel could not make a clear determination, the serviceman often "got the benefit of the doubt," Kirk said. "The fog of war forced the system to bend to interpretation," said former Navy Cmdr. David L. Riley, author of "Uncommon Valor," a history of the Navy's awards. A review of injury reports from Kerry's boat units during his tour of duty confirms that pattern. Stacked in the Navy archives in Washington, the records show that in the last three months of Kerry's tour, 46 Swift boat personnel were wounded. Most were hurt by shrapnel, and all but five of the cases earned Purple Hearts. Injury reports are missing from Kerry's first month � including his contested Dec. 2 wound. But at least two dozen of the 46 men who were wounded later suffered "light" or "minor" shrapnel injuries. In a similar number of cases, wounds could not be clearly traced to enemy fire. http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...lines-frontpage

quote:

the next embelishment is more humorous than relevant within the scope of a war record, but is just as insightful to the mind of a man that enjoys making things more than they really are. the following is a Humane Society questionaire that Kerry filled out as a Senator back in '85 or something like that. before reading this remember there is no record of his boat hitting more than one mine. he clearly lied to the Humane Society. why? who knows and who cares right? well, if your looking for patterns of self serving embelishment to influence your vote for a "Vietnam war hero president" shit like this is invaluable. quote: Do you have any pets that have made an impact on you personally? 1. I have always had pets in my life and there are a few that I remember very fondly. When I was serving on a swiftboat in Vietnam, my crewmates and I had a dog we called VC. We all took care of him, and he stayed with us and loved riding on the swiftboat deck. I think he provided all of us with a link to home and a few moments of peace and tranquility during a dangerous time. One day as our swiftboat was heading up a river, a mine exploded hard under our boat. After picking ourselves up, we discovered VC was MIA. Several minutes of frantic search followed after which we thought we'd lost him. We were relieved when another boat called asking if we were missing a dog. It turns out VC was catapulted from the deck of our boat and landed confused, but unhurt, on the deck of another boat in our patrol.

So the swiftboat vet arguments have now denigrated to some vague human society questionnaire in an attempt to discredit Kerry? This is pretty invaluable. You know what else is invaluable? Navy records! From the Command History for Coastal Division 11 for 1969:

quote:

February 18 1969 PCFs 50,66,72, and 94 conducted operations in the Bay Hap River. PCFs 50 and 66 entered first to proceed to Cai Mac(?) and conduct a MIDCAP. An underwater mine exploded in front of PCF 66 and both units received small arms fire. Units returned fire and continued to Cai Mac for MIDCAP. PCFs 72 and 94 entered river about 4 hours later despite intelligence reports that more mines existed. Two more mines exploded as 72 and 94 proceeded up the river, several rockets were also fired at the 2 units resulting in 2 US WIA. PCFs accounted for 1 VC KIA (probable). http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmils..._chronology.pdf

Hmmm mines exploding � two boats � sounds vaguely familiar. Next time do the proper research before you come out with baseless accusations.

quote:

do i have to produce hard evidence refuting the now, world famous, "Christmas in Cambodia" statements on the Senate floor and in the Boston Globe? man, i hope some of you guys aren't ingnorant to that fact seeing how the Kerry campaign has backpedaled on that one too.

Sure provide whatever hard evidence you�ve got. It�s a slow day at the office today �

quote:

as far as his second PH, his Bronze Star and Silver Star...well, i gonna leave it up to you. the eyewitnesses the crewmates, the right and the left are still hashing it out. thats too bad because i really want to get at the bottom of them before November so John Kerry can can present himself as a Senator worthy of the highest office, as opposed to a Vietnam veteran worthy of the highest office.

Oh they�re pretty much hashed out. The silver star award is pretty much a slam dunk. The swiftboat vets haven�t a chance in refuting that evidence. Elliott came out of it looking like a boob because his accounts now are in stark contrast to what he wrote in the official navy records. As for the bronze star, Thurlow tried to say that there was no enemy fire that day � haha and then the Washington Post pulled HIS bronze star citation from the incident which stated that:

"All units began receiving enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks," and after the first explosion. The citation describes Thurlow as leaping aboard the damaged PCF-3 and rendering aid "while still under enemy fire," and adds: "His actions and courage in the face of enemy fire . . . were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service."

Then there�s Thurlow�s recommendation for the decoration which states that Thurlow's actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire." Who was it signed by? Elliott! Hahaha what a bunch of clowns.

But hey don�t believe me � read the navy records:

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFi...%20Citation.pdf

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFi...ward%20Recc.pdf

quote:

Vietnam veterans are not misguided in their opinion of John Kerry. we are misguided in our opinion of John Kerry.

Yes and the Vietnam vets with any leftover credibility who were actually THERE fighting side by side with Kerry all side with him. That should tell you a thing or two.

Interesting insight into the creation of the Swiftboat group:

quote:

According to standard Swift Boat Narrations, this inspiring movement got its start when Retired Admiral Roy Hoffmann read Doug Brinkley�s Tour of Duty. Hoffmann�s shorts flew into a wad over the way his own Vietnam service was portrayed. �Interviews with various Swift boat veterans turned up descriptions of Hoffman [sic] as �hotheaded,� �blood-thirsty,� and �egomaniacal,�� Brinkley writes (page 105). A bit later, he describes his interviews with some of those vets. �Decades later, many Swift boat veterans under Hoffman�s command would compare him with the rough-hewn colonel in Apocalypse Now who boasted that he �loved the smell of napalm in the morning�� (page 177). But it isn�t Kerry who�s making these comments, although he�s taken the brunt of Hoffmann�s wrath. Who was trashing Hoffmann so? A bit later, Brinkley quoted a skipper by name. Brinkley describes the anger felt when Don Droz was killed in one of the reckless missions required by Hoffmann�s Operation Sealords: quote: BRINKLEY (page 333): The death of Droz created a wave of angry sentiments from the Swift boat community. Lieutenant Larry Thurlow, for example, summed up the feeling many Swift boat officers had to Captain Hoffman: �That man wanted in the worst way to be admiral�that�s what Sealords was about.� BRINKLEY (pages 333-334): Lieutenant Stephen Hayes, for example, wrote extensively about the accident in his diary. A few days after the ambush he had gone on a mission past the �charred remains of the 43 boat.� The only word he could find to describe it was �grisly.� Frustrated at the carelessness of Operation Sealords, he took aim at Captain Hoffman with his pen. �Latch had the gall to call it a victory!!!� he wrote. �Such a tragedy that these operations are run by bunglers and hard core military men who apparently get some strange sense of satisfaction out of playing around with other men�s lives.� By now, Kerry was already back in the States. According to Brinkley, �Kerry now felt duty-bound to denounce Operation Sealords raids like the ones in which Droz was killed and Galvin was wounded as ludicrous missions aimed at sacrificing the best Americans to satisfy a president�s geopolitical ambitions.� Last year, before Brinkley�s book appeared, Hoffmann was whistling a different tune. Kate Zernike dished the dope in the New York Times: quote: ZERNIKE (8/20/04): In an unpublished interview in March 2003 with Mr. Kerry's authorized biographer, Douglas Brinkley, provided by Mr. Brinkley to The New York Times, Roy F. Hoffmann, a retired rear admiral and a leader of the group, allowed that he had disagreed with Mr. Kerry's antiwar positions but said, ''I am not going to say anything negative about him.'' He added, ''He's a good man.'' In a profile of the candidate that ran in The Boston Globe in June 2003, Mr. Hoffmann approvingly recalled the actions that led to Mr. Kerry's Silver Star: ''It took guts, and I admire that.'' But that was then and this is now. Why did �Latch� change his tune? It seems to have been the smell of criticism coming off Tour of Duty: quote: ZERNIKE: Both Mr. Hoffmann and Mr. Lonsdale had publicly lauded Mr. Kerry in the past. But the book, Mr. Brinkley's ''Tour of Duty,'' while it burnished Mr. Kerry's reputation, portrayed the two men as reckless leaders whose military approach had led to the deaths of countless sailors and innocent civilians. Several Swift boat veterans compared Mr. Hoffmann to the bloodthirsty colonel in the film ''Apocalypse Now''�the one who loves the smell of Napalm in the morning. The two men were determined to set the record, as they saw it, straight. ''It was the admiral who started it and got the rest of us into it,'' Mr. Lonsdale said. Apparently, Hoffmann believed he could set the record straight by changing his story on Kerry. Here�s the Globe piece to which Zernike refers. Latch seemed to be whistling a merrier tune back in 2003: quote: KRANISH (6/16/03): Roy Hoffmann, who commanded the coastal division in which Kerry served, worried about Kerry, at least at the beginning. He said Kerry and some other skippers initially "had difficulty carrying out direct orders. You know, they were playing the cowboy a little bit. John Kerry was one of them. You don't go out on your own when you are given certain type of patrols, and we were having difficulty with that." Hoffmann said the problem was corrected and he supported the actions on the day Kerry won the Silver Star. "It took guts, and I admire that," Hoffman said. http://www.dailyhowler.com/index.shtml

I'm beginning to understand why there are huge discrepancies between what many of these men state 30 years ago in official navy records, what they said as recentely as a few years ago, and what they are saying today. It's not flip-flopping, it's calculated lying.

Hehe, let's keep with the Smear Boat spirit and rationale on the "true" attainment of Purple Hearts:

quote:

Tuesday, August 31, 2004: BAND-AID GATE: Why do Republicans hate our soldiers serving in Iraq? "SGT Darrell Kindle was given a Purple Heart after he was injured during a mortar attack in Iraq. �I'm somewhat amazed. I still feel bad for the other soldiers who got wounded in the attack. There were a lot who were wounded seriously, more seriously than I was." Kindle's right hand was injured by the shrapnel. He said it was minor compared to what fellow soldiers suffered." According to the Republican party, you are a liar and a fraud, Sgt. Kindle. UPDATE: Yet more "phonies and frauds" who don't deserve a Purple Heart according to the Republican Party. "Pvt. Kevin Gropp, 26, of Littleton, Colo., was hit by shrapnel. His partner, Sgt. Luis Lazzara, 22, of Tampa, Fla., was grazed by a bullet and also had shrapnel wounds. Both received Purple Hearts on Friday. But they're back on the job already. Gropp still had a piece of shrapnel about the size of a dime in his body from the attack "I am not done yet," Gropp said. "I have mixed feelings about going back in. I am a little nervous, a little more on edge now. Everyone else wants me to go home." According to Megan Fox, a Defense Department spokeswoman, it's fairly common for injured soldiers to go back with their units as soon as they are physically able. The practice became legendary during World War II. "Men don't want to leave their friends in combat," she said. "We've heard reports from the field where people are being treated and their first question is, 'When can I get back with my unit?' It's a great tribute to our men and women that they can be in a situation and think of their unit first." So, apparently the fact that John kerry immediately reported back to his unit after being wounded is actually a sign of comraderie and guts? UPDATE AGAIN: And another one! "Staff Sgt. Toy Reed of Dierks hesitated to raise his hand when asked who in the room had been awarded a Purple Heart. He thought of his buddies who won�t return to Iraq and seemed embarrassed to wear the same purple medal because he�s alive and well. Several of his fellow Charlie Company soldiers tugged at him, telling him to acknowledge his sacrifice. "Me, I got a nick in the leg and a Band-Aid," he said. "I�ve got a guy hit in the eye who may lose his sight." How many soldiers serving in Iraq will the GOP dishonor and mock to make a stupid and pathetic argument? SING IT WITH ME NOW: "I am stuck on Band-aid, 'cause band-aid's stuck on GOP." http://counterspin.blogspot.com/200...d-aid-gate.html

Oh who am I kidding, it's not just the Smear Boaters, it's the willful GOPers as well!

Opus you're still missing the best one. According to the swiftboat vets we need to strip away Pat Tillman's purple heart because it was a freindly fire incident. Hmmm perhaps that silver star is suspect as well.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/05/29/tillman.report/

"Cpl. Tillman was shot and killed while responding to enemy fire without regard to his personal safety."

Without regard for his personal safety? WHy that sounds like incompetance to me!

Well I think it goes without saying that this Swifty crap sure has played itself around the media/blog horn quite extensively.

Let's see just how far the situation with Bush and the Texas Air Nat'l Guard will go. Anyone wanna take bets as to how long this will get carried? My guess is it will receive about a 1/3 as much attention:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2...s/index_np.html

quote:

The campaign battle over Vietnam War records is still raging, but President Bush may soon be the one answering uncomfortable questions about his past service. Ben Barnes, the former lieutenant governor of Texas, will finally break his silence and talk to the press about what role he played in helping Bush get a coveted slot in the Texas Air National Guard in 1968. Sources say Barnes has already sat down for a "60 Minutes" interview that will air a week from Sunday. A "60 Minutes" spokesperson declined to comment, saying the program does not discuss reports that are in progress. Barnes made headlines last week when his videotaped comments that he was "very ashamed" of getting Bush into the National Guard began circulating on the Web. He said the remorse was prompted by a recent visit to the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, where he saw the names of thousands of other young men who did not enjoy the connections of the Bush family. Barnes made his comments in May and the video was posted on a pro-Kerry Web site in June, but word of it only began to spread widely last Friday.

Keep in mind that Bush is on record for saying that he received absolutely no help in getting into the Texas Guard.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.