|
Kerry the Dolphin Part 2 (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| LiquidX |
Making fun of Kerry and the corn? heh. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
Thanks imokruok.
I just got back home and saw the posts :)
Saved me the trouble from looking up data pieces.
Looks like we have actual video proof of more than 1 crewman who disagreed with him:tongue2
When he took command on the swiftboat thats when the trouble began:nervous:
nice video....juicy with interview snippets of swift vets:toocool: |
Sigh ... you're not getting it. Only one of the crew who has served with Kerry on a swiftboat has disagreed with him. ALL his other crewmates stand by him.
| quote: |
Vietnam crewmates steady at Kerry's side
By Gregg Zoroya, USA TODAY
BOSTON — Thirteen of the men who fought with John Kerry in Vietnam will be on the podium Thursday night, helping introduce the nominee before he gives a speech accepting the Democratic nomination for president.
John Kerry takes a water taxi across Boston Harbor with fellow Vietnam veterans. At right is the Rev. David Alston.
Jack Gruber, USA TODAY
Graying and near retirement, they were the boatswain and gunnery mates, the petty officers who crewed 50-foot aluminum swift boats skippered by Kerry when he was a rail-thin 25-year-old Navy lieutenant (j.g.) in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam. They are, the Kerry campaign says often, his very own Band of Brothers. (Related graphic:Behind the Scenes)
The phrase is from the title of a book by the late Stephen Ambrose about World War II paratroopers bonded by the horror of war, an emotional linkage as old as human conflict. It's a theme of the Democratic convention this week: that Kerry's courage under fire is a measure of his character.
His crewmen were with him as Kerry arrived in Boston on Wednesday. They laughed and swapped stories on the water-taxi ride from Logan International Airport to the Charlestown Naval Yard. Jim Rassmann, whose life Kerry saved when he pulled him into a swift boat while under fire, was made to wear a life vest.
Then they turned serious, awed not just by the importance of the moment in Kerry's life but also by the simple fact that they survived and came to this moment together.
"We all fought together at a very crucial period in our lives when literally we could die within the next breath," says Fred Short, 56, a computer programmer from North Little Rock In 1969, he was a gunner's third mate aboard PCF-94, the second of two boats Kerry commanded.
Tonight, he and the others will attest to Kerry's courage and leadership and, they say, worthiness to lead America.
"I've seen his mettle in action. I know he's a cool character under fire," Short says of his ex-commander, who earned a Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts during a tour of duty that lasted several months. "Anything I can do for Sen. John Kerry is the very least I can do for him."
The Kerry campaign has a goal: 1 million veterans campaigning for one of their own. In six weeks, 100,000 have signed up, says organizer Max Cleland, the former senator from Georgia who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam. "This is a powerful movement," he says.
Democrats also see it as good political capital compared with the pilloried record of President Bush, whose service in the National Guard during the Vietnam era has been questioned.
"I know what 'mission accomplished' means," says James Wasser, referring to the banner behind Bush after he landed in a jet on an aircraft carrier and proclaimed major combat over in Iraq. "We've been on missions, and we've accomplished them. Just flying onto an aircraft carrier doesn't make it."
Promoting veterans is a fresh approach for a party with a legacy of peace activism. Kerry himself personified the anti-war movement when he demanded withdrawal from Vietnam during testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971.
But the emphasis today is on Kerry's combat experience. Cleland says his heroism in the treacherous Mekong Delta "sets up a powerful sense of gravitas, sense of meaning ... that we haven't had in the Democratic Party since Jack Kennedy."
At the core of this movement are the men who served with Kerry. They have star status here in their blue polo shirts bearing insignia of the boat on which they served with Kerry. When they speak, reporters and delegates mob them.
Steven Gardner, a former gunner's mate, isn't here. He has been critical of how Kerry uses his war record and refused to join the shipmates. Critics say Kerry has capitalized on his combat stint to further his political goals.
But Wade Sanders, 61, one of the ex-skippers, doesn't share that feeling. "I had to be with him, win or lose," the San Diego lawyer says.
The Kerry crewmembers struggle to explain this. "I say, try to imagine what it's like if you come to a really difficult crisis in your life and the people you love come closer to you," Sanders says.
"The only difference is that in combat, it happens a lot quicker, and your life depends on it."
For the Rev. David Alston, 57 — then a gunner's mate aboard PCF-94, the second of two swift boats Kerry skippered in Vietnam, and now a Baptist minister from Columbia, S.C. — his devotion to the candidate led to an invitation to address the convention by himself Monday night. It was something that terrified him at first.
But Alston pulled it off. "When the shooting stopped, he was always there, too, with a caring hand on my shoulder asking, 'Gunner, are you OK?' I was only 21, running on fear and adrenaline.
"It's not hard, when somebody has put their life on the line, to help him," he says. "It's not hard at all."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politi...crewmates_x.htm
|
So you can muddy the waters with all these alleged accounts from people who supposedly went into action with him, but only ONE of those people, Steve Gardner, actually served with him on a swiftboat. But I see how it is, when you can't rally enough support among those who would know his brevity or heroism best (ie: his fellow crewmates), simply go outside that group and cherry pick the opinions voiced by those who "served" with him. |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Sigh ... you're not getting it. Only one of the crew who has served with Kerry on a swiftboat has disagreed with him. ALL his other crewmates stand by him.
So you can muddy the waters with all these alleged accounts from people who supposedly went into action with him, but only ONE of those people, Steve Gardner, actually served with him on a swiftboat. But I see how it is, when you can't rally enough support among those who would know his brevity or heroism best (ie: his fellow crewmates), simply go outside that group and cherry pick the opinions voiced by those who "served" with him. |
http://www.swiftvets.com
Go to the real story then to quotes and facts
I tried putting the link direct but its dead for some reason.Manually going in works fine though
This should answer most of your questions. Most of the guys that are shown on the site are just able to say that they didn't commit war crimes while they were in Nam and that on that basis, John Kerry is a liar...unless he retracts everything he said in his now out of print book and to congress.
The picture is of other Swiftboat captains...Kerry's peers, not subordinates, stationed with him during his time in Nam. The thing that really got these guys going was the use of the picture and the implication (distortion) that they ALL supported him, when he knew damn well they did not.
Several swiftboat crews were all stationed in one place and worked together patrolling the delta in teams, so plenty of guys besides the ones on Kerry's boat got a really good look at John Kerry.
It is not all BS. I could see getting a half dozen guys to lie about something (like Kerry's swiftboat supporters maybe?), but not the vast number that are on this site and are willing to take a public stand against Kerry. Character is really at issue here, if the guy isn't a war hero, no way this many people would say he wasn't. I am sure that not all of them think Bush is God's gift to military service either.
One swiftboat mission when he was serving on and the other when he took command with a new group of individuals. Could Kerry's subordinates/peers/superiors be lying? Sure, anything is possible.
But what do they have to gain by lying? They were't just passing acquaintances, those people were comrade in arms, they fought alongside, protecting each other.
I don't know about them, but if I was one of those people, no political differences could make me lie about what really happened on the battlefield or fabricate false stories about those who fought alongside me. I can understand those who question his protesting the war after he served, and how he threw away other peoples medals but not his own, but how can you question whether he served bravely when he volunteered to go to vietnam, was definitely in combat and dangerous situations, and earned a medal for saving a guys life?
He did throw away other peoples medals.....that is a factual piece of data. Unbelievable isnt it?
Also regarding the war crimes. Atrocities were committed by Americans in Vietnam, no doubt. However, his characterization of he and his fellow swiftboat crews as committing ramant atrocities has simply never been supported by any serious review of the facts. I am sure that isolated incidents that qualify as war crimes did occur. However, to suggest that they were a matter of routine combat operations is pure bull. The rules of engagement applying to swiftboat operations were strict and are a matter of record.
Let me highlight the video from which the doctor in vietnam said...
INdirect quote--One statement is from the doctor that allegely (he says he did) treated JKerry for his first wound that led to the #1 Purple Heart. He says that he lied to get the PH. Seems to me that will be particuarlly (sp) damning because it is comming from a Vet and a doctor, two respected positions. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
One swiftboat mission when he was serving on and the other when he took command with a new group of individuals. |
No those people were crewmen of OTHER swiftboats that supposedly went on some of the missions that Kerry did. But please, cut the crap and post sources that detail the how the alleged statements made by these individuals were direct crewmates of Kerry ... I posted sources for my ascertations. |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| edited the first post above yours with a link:cool: |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
I'm a bit confused..
| quote: | | No those people were crewmen of OTHER swiftboats that supposedly went on some of the missions that Kerry did. But please, cut the crap and post sources that detail the how the alleged statements made by these individuals were direct crewmates of Kerry ... I posted sources for my ascertations. |
| quote: | | http://www.swiftvets.com |
i clicked his link expecting to read testimonials of people who were direct crewmates of kerry. Is this a case of not answering the question asked? rather answering the question you would like to have been asked.
Please enlighten us trollers, speedracer.:D |
|
|
| occrider |
Perhaps I can help aid you ResonantDrag. Finally, something I can dig into.
| quote: | http://www.swiftvets.com
Go to the real story then to quotes and facts
I tried putting the link direct but its dead for some reason. Manually going in works fine though
This should answer most of your questions. Most of the guys that are shown on the site are just able to say that they didn't commit war crimes while they were in Nam and that on that basis, John Kerry is a liar...unless he retracts everything he said in his now out of print book and to congress.
The picture is of other Swiftboat captains...Kerry's peers, not subordinates, stationed with him during his time in Nam. The thing that really got these guys going was the use of the picture and the implication (distortion) that they ALL supported him, when he knew damn well they did not.
Several swiftboat crews were all stationed in one place and worked together patrolling the delta in teams, so plenty of guys besides the ones on Kerry's boat got a really good look at John Kerry.
|
Oh and how would you know of their level of involvement, or knowledge of his ability to lead men into combat? I find it extremely odd how everyone who is critical of Kerry’s ability to lead is an “expert” EXCEPT for those who he actually led! Haha that’s some great common sense right there.
| quote: |
It is not all BS. I could see getting a half dozen guys to lie about something (like Kerry's swiftboat supporters maybe?), but not the vast number that are on this site and are willing to take a public stand against Kerry. Character is really at issue here, if the guy isn't a war hero, no way this many people would say he wasn't. I am sure that not all of them think Bush is God's gift to military service either.
|
Ok so 13 guys who actually SERVED under Kerry are susceptible to lies and manipulation to speak up for Kerry, but the VAST number (19!!!!) of people who came out in criticism is too many people such their message is above reproach? Hilarious.
| quote: |
One swiftboat mission when he was serving on and the other when he took command with a new group of individuals. Could Kerry's subordinates/peers/superiors be lying? Sure, anything is possible.
But what do they have to gain by lying? They were't just passing acquaintances, those people were comrade in arms, they fought alongside, protecting each other.
I don't know about them, but if I was one of those people, no political differences could make me lie about what really happened on the battlefield or fabricate false stories about those who fought alongside me. I can understand those who question his protesting the war after he served, and how he threw away other peoples medals but not his own, but how can you question whether he served bravely when he volunteered to go to vietnam, was definitely in combat and dangerous situations, and earned a medal for saving a guys life?
He did throw away other peoples medals.....that is a factual piece of data. Unbelievable isnt it?
|
Wait a minute … are you refuting your own argument? Because you’re doing a pretty good job of it. Haha ok so yes I’ll redirect your own question to you, what do the people who have directly served and commanded Kerry have to gain by lying??? You have 13 people who actually served under Kerry state that he was a great leader. You have his direct commanders giving praise to kerry:
Navy records, fitness reports by Kerry's commanders and scores of interviews with Swift boat officers and crewmen depict a model officer who fought aggressively in river ambushes and won the respect of many of his crewmates and commanders, even as his doubts about the war grew.
"I don't like what he said after the war," said Adrian Lonsdale, who commanded Kerry for three months in 1969. "But he was a good naval officer."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't know what conclusions you can draw about someone's ability to lead from their combat experience, but John's service was commendable," said James J. Galvin, a former Swift boat officer . . . "He played by the same rules we all did."
And you even have one of his detractors giving praise for him at the time. Remember this guy?
"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust — all absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact, contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography. He arrived in-country with a strong anti-Vietnam War bias and a self-serving determination to build a foundation for his political future. He was aggressive, but vain and prone to impulsive judgment, often with disregard for specific tactical assignments. He was a 'loose cannon.' In an abbreviated tour of four months and 12 days, and with his specious medals secure, Lt.(jg) Kerry bugged out and began his infamous betrayal of all United States forces in the Vietnam War. That included our soldiers, our marines, our sailors, our coast guardsmen, our airmen, and our POWs. His leadership within the so-called Vietnam Veterans Against the War and testimony before Congress in 1971 charging us with unspeakable atrocities remain an undocumented but nevertheless meticulous stain on the men and women who honorably stayed the course. Senator Kerry is not fit for command."
— Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired), chairman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
The Chairman for that website? The LA Times did a story on Kerry’s exploits and looked up records on Hoffman’s evaluation of Kerry’s performance, this is what they found:
| quote: | Three days after the skirmish, Kerry and his crew also received a cable from Sealords task force headquarters.
"The tactic of attack and assault thoroughly surprised the enemy in his spider-holes and proved to be immensely effective in rousting him into the open," the message read.
The cable was from Hoffmann. Four times in February and March, he cabled Kerry and his crew, praising them and other Swift boats after skirmishes. Hoffmann acknowledged the cables, saying Kerry showed "some pretty sharp thinking. He had courage. But he was loose. He went out on his own too much."
Hoffmann and several former Swift officers said Kerry's boat sometimes veered off during missions without explanation — a criticism Kerry and his crewmen dismissed.
There are no official rebukes in Navy archives or Kerry's available personnel file. Hoffmann's criticism is also at odds with the glowing evaluations of Kerry in his official Navy record.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...lines-frontpage
|
So the very chairman of that website praised Kerry’s performance and gave him glowing reviews … it can’t get much more politicial than this.
| quote: |
Also regarding the war crimes. Atrocities were committed by Americans in Vietnam, no doubt. However, his characterization of he and his fellow swiftboat crews as committing ramant atrocities has simply never been supported by any serious review of the facts. I am sure that isolated incidents that qualify as war crimes did occur. However, to suggest that they were a matter of routine combat operations is pure bull. The rules of engagement applying to swiftboat operations were strict and are a matter of record.
|
Oh really? Strict rules of engagement? Yes as a matter of record, many of the swiftboat operations were carried out in free fire zones. If you don’t understand the concept of a free fire zone, it’s essentially a rule of engagement where there’s NO RULE OF ENGAGEMENT. Read a history book please. Therefore, when Kerry was referring to atrocities he was referring to the free fire zones of Indochina.
| quote: |
Let me highlight the video from which the doctor in vietnam said...
INdirect quote--One statement is from the doctor that allegely (he says he did) treated JKerry for his first wound that led to the #1 Purple Heart. He says that he lied to get the PH. Seems to me that will be particuarlly (sp) damning because it is comming from a Vet and a doctor, two respected positions.
|
From the LA Times article:
| 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.
"All I knew," Kerry said, "was I had a hole in my shirt and a hole in my arm."
http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...lines-frontpage
|
PS: I'm still waiting for someone who's still willing to call Kerry a flip-flopper to address Bush's flip-flopping. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Please excuse me if I have a difficult time buying into this deliberate Carl Rove-like smear campaign against Kerry's war record.
| quote: | ]Originally posted by Q5echo
holy thats gonna sting |
I suppose those who know nothing about this group would think that. Or those who are so bent on discrediting every single event in Kerry's life would WANT to believe that.
The facts, of course, reveal a different story. We’ve discussed this group before, BTW:
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...wift+boat+kerry
| quote: | Smear Boat Veterans for Bush
The "swift boat" veterans attacking John Kerry's war record are led by veteran right-wing operatives using the same vicious techniques they used against John McCain four years ago.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason
May 4, 2004 | The latest conservative outfit to fire an angry broadside against John Kerry's heroic war record is Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which today launches a campaign to brand the Democrat "unfit to serve as commander in chief." Billing itself as representing the "other 97 percent of veterans" from Kerry's Navy unit who don't support his presidential candidacy, the group insists that all presidential candidates must be "totally honest and forthcoming" about their military service.
These "swift boat vets" claim still to be furious about Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony against the war in which he spoke about atrocities in Indochina's "free fire zones." More than three decades later, facing the complicated truth about Vietnam remains difficult. But this group's political connections make clear that its agenda is to target the election of 2004.
Behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are veteran corporate media consultant and Texas Republican activist Merrie Spaeth, who is listed as the group's media contact; eternal Kerry antagonist and Houston attorney John E. O'Neill, law partner of Spaeth's late husband, Tex Lezar; and retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffman, a cigar-chomping former Vietnam commander once described as "the classic body-count guy" who "wanted hooches destroyed and people killed."
Spaeth told Salon that O'Neill first approached her last winter to discuss his "concerns about Sen. Kerry." O'Neill has been assailing Kerry since 1971, when the former Navy officer was selected for the role by Charles Colson, Richard Nixon's dirty-tricks aide. Spaeth heard O'Neill out, but told him, she says, that he "sounded like a crazed extremist" and should "button his lip" and avoid speaking with the press. But since Kerry clinched the Democratic nomination, Spaeth has changed her mind and decided to donate her public relations services on a "pro bono" basis to O'Neill's latest anti-Kerry effort. "About three weeks ago, four weeks ago," she said, the group's leaders "met in my office for about 12 hours" to prepare for their Washington debut.
Although not as well known as Karen Hughes, Spaeth is among the most experienced and best connected Republican communications executives. During the Reagan administration she served as director of the White House Office of Media Liaison, where she specialized in promoting "news" items that boosted President Reagan to TV stations around the country. While living in Washington she met and married Lezar, a Reagan Justice Department lawyer who ran for lieutenant governor of Texas in 1994 with George W. Bush, then the party's candidate for governor. (Lezar lost; Bush won.)
Through Lezar, who died of a heart attack last January, she met O'Neill, his law partner in Clements, O'Neill, Pierce, Wilson & Fulkerson, a Dallas firm. (It also includes Margaret Wilson, the former counsel to Gov. Bush who followed him to Washington, where she served for a time as a deputy counsel in the Department of Commerce.)
Spaeth's partisanship runs still deeper, as does her history of handling difficult P.R. cases for Republicans. In 1998, for example, she coached Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel, to prepare him for his testimony urging the impeachment of President Clinton before the House Judiciary Committee. She even reviewed videotapes of his previous television appearances to give him pointers about his delivery and demeanor. The man responsible for arranging her advice to Starr was another old friend of her late husband's, Theodore Olson, who was counsel to the right-wing American Spectator when it acted as a front for the dirty-tricks campaign against Clinton known as the Arkansas Project; he is now the solicitor general in the Bush Justice Department. (Olson also happens to be the godfather of Spaeth's daughter.)
In 2000, Spaeth participated in the most subterranean episode of the Republican primary contest when a shadowy group billed as "Republicans for Clean Air" produced television ads falsely attacking the environmental record of Sen. John McCain in California, New York and Ohio. While the identity of those funding the supposedly "independent" ads was carefully hidden, reporters soon learned that Republicans for Clean Air was simply Sam Wyly -- a big Bush contributor and beneficiary of Bush administration decisions in Texas -- and his brother, Charles, another Bush "Pioneer" contributor. (One of the Wyly family's private capital funds, Maverick Capital of Dallas, had been awarded a state contract to invest $90 million for the University of Texas endowment.)
When the secret emerged, spokeswoman Spaeth caught the flak for the Wylys, an experience she recalled to me as "horrible" and "awful." Her job was to assure reporters that there had been no illegal coordination between the Bush campaign and the Wyly brothers in arranging the McCain-trashing message. Not everyone believed her explanation, including the Arizona senator.
The veteran group's founder, Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, first gained notoriety in Vietnam as a strutting, cigar-chewing Navy captain. But it was O'Neill, by now a familiar figure on the Kerry-bashing circuit, who came to Spaeth for assistance.
Until now, Hoffmann has been best known as the commanding officer whose obsession with body counts and "scorekeeping" may have provoked the February 1969 massacre of Vietnamese civilians at Thanh Phong by a unit led by Bob Kerrey -- the Medal of Honor winner who lost a leg in Nam, became a U.S. senator from Nebraska and now sits on the 9/11 commission.
After journalist Gregory Vistica exposed the Thanh Phong massacre and the surrounding circumstances in the New York Times magazine three years ago, conservative columnist Christopher Caldwell took particular note of the cameo role played by Kerrey's C.O., who had warned his men not to return from missions without enough kills. "One of the myths due to die as a result of Vistica's article is that which holds the war could have been won sensibly and cleanly if the 'suits' back in Washington had merely left the military men to their own devices," Caldwell wrote. "In this light, one of the great merits of Vistica's article is its portrait of the Kurtz-like psychopath who commanded Kerrey's Navy task force, Capt. Roy Hoffmann."
Arguments about the war in Vietnam seem destined to continue forever. For now, however, the lingering bitterness and ambiguity of those days provide smear material against an antiwar war hero with five medals on behalf of a privileged Guardsman with a dubious duty record. The president's Texas allies -- whose animus against his Democratic challenger dates back to the Nixon era -- are now deploying the same techniques and personnel they used to attack McCain's integrity four years ago. Bush's "independent" supporters would apparently rather talk about the Vietnam quagmire than about his deadly incompetence in Iraq.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conaso...ift/index1.html |
Note the parts about Hoffmann, the commander of Kerry being somewhat obsessed with body count figures. Nice guy, huh? Funny how he is the founder of this group against Kerry. What I don’t seem to understand is, if he was so against Kerry, why then, according to the Navy Archives, did he give high praise for Kerry?:
| quote: | Yet Hoffmann and Kerry had few direct dealings in Vietnam. A Los Angeles Times examination of Navy archives found that Hoffmann praised Kerry's performance in cabled messages after several river skirmishes. And while the Purple Heart account remains murky, its award was routine. Navy records show Swift boat crews were frequently raked with slight wounds of uncertain origin — injuries that often earned decorations.
"I don't know what conclusions you can draw about someone's ability to lead from their combat experience, but John's service was commendable," said James J. Galvin, a former Swift boat officer who, like Kerry, was honored for three minor wounds and left the coastal combat zone early. "He played by the same rules we all did."
http://www.latimes.com/news/politic...-home-headlines |
Oh but wait, what were some of those cables that Hoffmann stated praise about Kerry? Well golly gee, here they are:
Kerry's charge won him a Silver Star, personally awarded by Zumwalt in a Saigon ceremony. Three days after the skirmish, Kerry and his crew also received a cable from Sealords task force headquarters.
| quote: | "The tactic of attack and assault thoroughly surprised the enemy in his spider-holes and proved to be immensely effective in rousting him into the open," the message read.
The cable was from Hoffmann. Four times in February and March, he cabled Kerry and his crew, praising them and other Swift boats after skirmishes. Hoffmann acknowledged the cables, saying Kerry showed "some pretty sharp thinking. He had courage. But he was loose. He went out on his own too much."
Hoffmann and several former Swift officers said Kerry's boat sometimes veered off during missions without explanation — a criticism Kerry and his crewmen dismissed.
There are no official rebukes in Navy archives or Kerry's available personnel file. Hoffmann's criticism is also at odds with the glowing evaluations of Kerry in his official Navy record. Only Hibbard's was less than effusive.
The same day as the Silver Star beaching, Hoffmann sent Kerry's boat another cable commending the crew's capture of "5 VC males" in a "daring PCF operation [that] will provide an invaluable source of intelligence." |
By golly, a body-count nutbag like Hoffmann praising Kerry? Who woulda thunk it?
And let’s keep in mind that 9 out of 10 crewmates of Kerry support his leadership throughout his Vietnam tour. The lone wolf who doesn’t (Gardener), strangely enough seems to have some kinda political motivation against Kerry in the first place:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/pri...,599034,00.html
Boy oh boy, who woulda thunk that?
But wait, we’ve got more than just Hoffmann of that smearing crew to examine in their “flip-flopping” views on Kerry. Let’s take a look at yet another piece, this one from Fox exosing that group:
| quote: | FOX exposed anti-Kerry vets' flip-flopping
As part of ongoing efforts to undermine Senator John Kerry's war record, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group founded to discredit Kerry's record during and after his service in Vietnam, held its first news conference on May 4. Also on that day, Media Matters for America released a report on the group's founder, John O'Neill -- also one of Kerry's strongest critics; the report documents O'Neill's participation in Republican efforts to smear Kerry dating back to the Nixon administration. The scrutiny that cable networks directed toward Kerry's critics throughout the day varied significantly; FOX News Channel provided in-depth coverage, including revealing that some of Kerry's present-day critics have, in the past, actually praised Kerry for his Vietnam service.
In many of the May 4 cable news reports, the partisan political backgrounds of the Swift Boat Vets were mentioned. CNN's afternoon news program, Live From..., described the group only as "Vietnam vets who formed a special purpose political action committee" and did not note O'Neill's or any other member's political affiliation. Later in the day, CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley reported on Inside Politics: "[T]he Kerry campaign points out there are Republicans here." Crowley also noted that the group's spokeswoman "is a Texas Republican who has contributed to the Bush campaign." On CNN's Crossfire, co-host James Carville also pointed to the Swift Boat Vets' Republican ties, as reported in Salon.com by Joe Conason in a May 4 article.
[/b]On MSNBC's Scarborough Country, host Joe Scarborough mentioned criticism of O'Neill's "dirty tricks" for the Nixon administration and asked if O'Neill was doing it again for the Bush campaign.[/b] MSNBC's Lester Holt Live showed a clip of Michael Meehan, Kerry presidential campaign adviser, criticizing the Swift Boat Veterans for their partisan attacks on Kerry and noting that a number of Kerry's crewmembers in Vietnam have praised his service. An afternoon report on MSNBC's daily news show, MSNBC Live, noted only that the Kerry campaign is "of course putting up veterans who disagree" with Kerry's critics. The broadcast omitted any information on individual members of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, whom the program identified as "a group of former Navy swift boat commanders and personnel many of whom served with Kerry in Vietnam."
FOX News Channel pushed harder on the credibility of some of the group's members. On several shows throughout the afternoon and evening, including Special Report with Brit Hume, FOX News Channel chief political correspondent Carl Cameron provided substantial background on some key Kerry critics. Cameron reported that the veterans held a news conference "essentially to trash [Kerry]" and that much of their criticism "dramatically conflicts with the public record." Cameron stated, "Senator Kerry has released most of his military records and for the most part, they are a glowing detail of his military service." Not only does their criticism conflict with what The New York Times described in an April 22 article as Kerry's "uniformly positive" evaluations included in his military records, but, as Cameron also reported, their criticism is inconsistent with statements previously made by many of the Swift Boat Vets themselves. Cameron reported that in 1968, Kerry critic Grant W. Hibbard,[1] a lieutenant commander in Vietnam during Kerry's tour:
... described Kerry in various favorable ways, as quote, "One of the top few in his willingness to seek and accept responsibility." Captain George Elliot, who served in Vietnam at the same time Kerry did, condemns Kerry now for touting his service in a war that Kerry later protested. ... But in '96, Elliot and other critics of today, praised him for going after the enemy. |
Wait a tick – is that the same Grant Hibbard in that darned Smear Boat For Truth commercial you gave? Nahh, couldn’t be!
| quote: | | Beyond pointing out the inconsistent statements by some of Kerry's critics, Cameron also reported that Democrats say that "many of them ... have become Republicans ... who have supported the Bush campaigns in Texas, have been close friends of the Bush family both in politics and business." Cameron stated on Special Report with Brit Hume, "The GOP says it's not involved with the veterans criticizing Kerry, but many of them are Republicans who have contributed to and backed various Bush campaigns and causes over the decades." |
What what what?!?!? Veterans smearing Kerry having historical ties to the Bush family and GOP? No way, brother! It just ain’t true, is it?
| quote: | | On FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes, co-host Alan Colmes challenged the credibility of the Swift Boat Vets. Colmes noted that Swift Boat Vets leader O'Neill did not serve in Vietnam with Kerry; rather, as O'Neill told Colmes, "I actually took his boat over, but about two months after he [Kerry] left."Colmes also draws attention to the flip-flopping nature of the comments made about Kerry by several group members. Colmes questioned O'Neill who appeared on the show: |
Wait a gosh darn minute! The smear group’s leader wasn’t even on the boat with Kerry? Hmmmm……
| quote: | | Here is what Grant Hubbard [sic], who's now part of your group, here's what he had to say back then about John Kerry. And he signed -- let's put it up on the screen -- a report on Kerry. He said on initiative, one of the top few. Cooperation, one of the top few. Personal behavior, one of the top few. Why would he say that then and now be supporting you now? |
Oh Hibbard, you’re such a jokester!
| quote: | Colmes further probed:
Let me show you the report of George Elliott, who also graded John Kerry in Vietnam. Here's what was said. Here's what he said. "In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, Lieutenant Junior Grade Kerry was unsurpassed. LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach." That's a report of officer fitness from 1969 by George Elliott, who also graded Kerry. How do you account for that? Do you want to claim that everybody now is saying what you're saying? It's clearly not true. |
That silly Elliott guy, what was he thinking back then? Surely he just didn’t mean all those nice praises for Kerry, did he?
| quote: | Colmes went on to say to O'Neill, "You haven't explained to me how the very people who you claim are supporting you now had these superlative things to say about John Kerry back in the day when he was serving in Vietnam. I don't understand the discrepancy. Maybe you could explain it."
O'Neill answered by saying, "Sure. They were hardly superlative. If you look at John Kerry rated ... as a member of a group, you'll find that virtually everybody in the group got the same ones. Commander Hibbard, related generally, graded John Kerry as not observed. So you take that two or three items and ignored the not observed item on there."
Colmes replied, "[E]verything he did observe him on he was superlative."
O'Neill responded: "Yes, and mostly it was not observed."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
[1]During his April 19 MSNBC show Scarborough Country, former Florida Republican Representative Joe Scarborough referred to an April 14 Boston Globe story, from which he quoted the following: "John Kerry's much-heralded service medals are being questioned." Scarborough extensively quoted the Globe's interview with Kerry's commanding officer in Vietnam, Lieutenant Commander Grant Hibbard, who has questioned Kerry's first Purple Heart: "He [Hibbard] said -- quote -- 'He [Kerry] had a little scratch on his forearm. He was holding a piece of shrapnel. People in the office were saying, I don't think we got any fire.' And when asked about Kerry's medal, Grant said: 'Obviously, he got it, I don't know how.'"
Scarborough failed to mention the following facts from the Globe article: that Hibbard is a Republican and that "a review by the Globe of Kerry's war record ... found that the young Navy officer [Kerry] acted heroically under fire, in one case saving the life of an Army lieutenant."
In an April 14 Salon.com article, historian Douglas Brinkley debunked efforts to diminish Kerry's Vietnam record. Brinkley is the director of the Eisenhower Center for American Studies, a history professor at the University of New Orleans, and author of Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War.
— N.C.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200405050004 |
Well by golly, we got ourselves a little flip-floppin’ goin’ on har, and it ain’t even Kerry this time!
Let’s examine another guy from that smear group, the doctor Lewis
Letson who supposedly examined Kerry’s 1st purple heart:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politic...a-home-politics
Funny how he wasn’t even the doctor that signed off on Kerry’s exam. Nice credibility problem he’s developed.
But let’s grant this bloke, for argument sake, that he did examine Kerry, and that it was merely a scratch. Why is he after Kerry for this? Who granted Kerry the award? Did Kerry grant himself the award?
Umm, uhh, uhh, was it the Navy, Mr. Opus?
ING A RIGHT IT WAS THE ING NAVY! SO WHY AREN’T THESE ING IDIOT SMEAR ARTIST CONSERVATIVES GOING AFTER THE NAVY FOR GIVING KERRY THE AWARD?!? HAVE YOU, DR. LETSON, OR ANY OTHER BUSH APOLOGIST EVER THOUGHT OF ASKING THAT QUESTION?!?!?!
(Oh, sidenote, here’s Kerry’s request to go to Vietnam:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmils...ftboat_Duty.pdf
Any conservative wish to contrast that with Bush’s request NOT to go to Vietnam?)
Funny how his fitness reports from the Navy tend to contradict this group’s smear attempts. You can read those fitness reports here:
http://www.intel-dump.com/archives/...004_04_21.shtml
Let’s see, who else? Oh yeah, Capt. Adrian Lonsdale, another Smear Boat winner had this to say about Kerry in November 4, 1996 issue of South Coast Today:
| quote: | "Adrian Lonsdale remembers a young John F. Kerry as a naval officer who was a good debater, even back in his days in Vietnam. "'He and I and others used to have long discussions at the officers club,' said Mr. Lonsdale of Mattapoisett, a former Coast Guard officer who commanded a division in which the Massachusetts senator was attached back in 1969. 'They were very spirited discussions about the war and the politics back home.' "'He was opposed to the war but it didn't make any difference in his performance,' said the former owner and still instructor at Northeast Maritime Institute in New Bedford. 'He was a very good officer.' "Capt. Lonsdale was among a group of former Vietnam veterans the Massachusetts Democrat brought to the Charlestown navy yard recently to rebut a Boston Globe column that raised questions about Sen. Kerry's Vietnam service, particularly the Silver Star he won. "Mr. Lonsdale was in charge of a two-division flotilla opereating [sic] out of Phu Quoc, a big island near the Cambodian border. One division was made up of Swift boats, fast 50-foot offshore boats, while the other was composed of 82-foot Coast Guard patrol boats."
http://www.s-t.com/daily/11-96/11-04-96/d01lo120.htm
|
Ooo, this is a nice little tidbit on the Smear Boat:
http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/m...ion/9142574.htm
Still trusting that group’s intentions and motivations now?
Let’s see, did I leave anything out? Oh yeah, Kerry’s “fishy” circumstances for earning his medals:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp
So, dear conservatives, I think this is an issue you really shouldn’t be touching with a 10-ft. pole, nor is this Smear Group worth touching either. Aside of Fox and a slew of conservative commentators deriding them, hell even Newsmax had it’s turn:
| quote: | O'Neill told NewsMax.com that the medals and their back stories were not the real issue being targeted by the organization, referring to the second paragraph of the letter to Kerry:
"It is our collective judgment that, upon your return from Vietnam, you grossly and knowingly distorted the conduct of the American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen of that war (including a betrayal of many of us, without regard for the danger your actions caused us.) Further, we believe that you have withheld and/or distorted material facts as to your own conduct in this war."
But it is with regard to the latter sentence of the charge that O'Neill and others get vague.
When asked by NewsMax if they had in mind any potential smoking gun of distortion that might be revealed by an unfettered examination of Kerry's military records, there was no answer forthcoming.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/art.../4/132751.shtml |
Guess that’s why they hired a detective to help with the smear, huh?
But most importantly, this examination into Kerry’s war record really begs the comparison to your war hero Bush and his military record (or lack thereof). By all means, please attempt to defend his unaccountability for at least 3 months.
By the way, McCain isn’t too happy with this bull group either, nor is he happy with the White House for failing to condemn them. Probably feels a little familiar to him, doesn’t it?:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...pr/kerry_mccain |
|
|
| Shakka |
| Don't you people have jobs??? How do you write a 20 page thesis in the middle of a Thursday afternoon? Or any afternoon for that matter? I must be getting too old for this.:D :cool: |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Don't you people have jobs??? How do you write a 20 page thesis in the middle of a Thursday afternoon? Or any afternoon for that matter? I must be getting too old for this.:D :cool: |
You're just jealous of my time management skills.:D |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Don't you people have jobs??? How do you write a 20 page thesis in the middle of a Thursday afternoon? Or any afternoon for that matter? I must be getting too old for this.:D :cool: |
My boss, and all the other directors for that matter, are in training today :). And Opus doesn't really have much to do all day since there are no transitional fossils for him to work on :p. You must have missed the thread where creatiionists logically and scientifically debunked biology. |
|
|
| occrider |
Speaking of non-existant transitional fossils, I just read this new development on the study of Archaeopteryx today:
Scientists Say Dinosaur Bird Was Equipped to Fly
Wed Aug 4, 2004 02:07 PM ET
By Patricia Reaney
LONDON (Reuters) - A dinosaur bird that lived 147 million years ago had a brain similar to a modern eagle or parrot and was equipped to fly, scientists said on Wednesday.
Archaeopteryx is the most ancient bird known. It had the bony tail and teeth of a dinosaur and the feathers and wings of a bird but its flying ability has never been proven.
But researchers in the United States and Britain have used sophisticated computer imaging of the braincase from a fossil of Archaeopteryx found in Germany in 1861 to show that the creature had all the characteristics and brain power to conquer the skies.
"Archaeopteryx's brain, its senses and its ear turned out to be surprisingly more bird-like than we thought," Dr Angela Milner, a paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in London, said in an interview.
"It is regarded as the most primitive bird we know and its skeleton is almost all dinosaur except that it has feathers and wings, so we were surprised that its brain was already quite an advanced bird-like brain."
The particular shape of the brain, its inner ear which is linked to balance, and its sensory ability have convinced scientists it was capable of flying.
"It had everything in place in its neurosensory functions and structures that suggest it was well-equipped to fly," Milner added.
OLDEST BIRD BRAIN
Archaeopteryx was small -- about the size of a European magpie. The evidence showing it was capable of flying, reported in the science journal Nature, raises new questions about the origins of flight.
"Archaeopteryx's brain was fully equipped for flight and it had a bird-like brain. Obviously the evolutionary trends that led to that must have happened a lot further back in time than we really thought," said Milner.
Scientists at the London museum removed the 20 millimeter (0.8 inch) braincase from the rest of the fossil and collaborated with researchers at the University of Texas at Austin who constructed a three-dimensional model of its brain using computer images.
"This animal had huge eyes and a huge vision region in its brain to go along with that, and a great sense of balance," said Dr Timothy Rowe, of the Texas university.
"Its inner ear looks very much like the ear of a modern bird."
Significant visual ability and brain power were thought to be needed to coordinate information from the eyes and ears that is essential for flight.
In a commentary in the journal, Lawrence Witmer of Ohio University College of Osteopathic Medicine in Athens, Ohio described the research as a landmark study.
"The results have implications for both the biology of Archaeopteryx and the evolutionary transition to birds," he said, adding that previous studies have looked at the structure of wings and features for clues about the creature's ability to fly.
"But flight isn't just about wings, rudders and flaps. It's also about the pilot and on-board computer, and those are the missing elements that this new study provides for Archaeopteryx," he added.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....32&pageNumber=1
I wish Nessa was still around to debunk it :( |
|
|
|
|
