http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry/

Out of line is the right phrase. Ignoring the fact the swift vets have established links with the GOP, their claims are dispute as not one of the men served in Kerry's patrol boat, or indeed under his command. Id hardly say they bought anything on, other than trying to smear someone in the most unhonorable way, and embarassing themselves.

Posted by: Filthycommie at August 6, 2004 11:45 AM

FC: As I understand it, you are saying that:

1) None of these men could possibly be telling the truth, simply because some (possibly all) of them are Republicans, but that the two Democrats that served with Kerry and are paid members of Kerry's campaign staff are being 100% honest.

2) The only people in Vietnam that could possibly know anything about John Kerry are the half-dozen men who were actually in his boat and that the other men in Vietnam, such as the me in his small unit who who he worked with every day and the doctors who treated him for the woulds for which he received purple hearts, can possibly know anything about him.

Please correct me if I misunderstand what you are trying to claim, because your assertions don't seem very reasonable to me.

Posted by: Jerry at August 6, 2004 11:58 AM

None of this would be relevant had Mr. Kerry only have been elected to some office, say the United States Senate and built his campaign around that. Since, by all the evidence of Mr. Kerry's campaign, his only qualification for President is that four months three and a half decades ago, it's fair game.
It dazzles the mind, though, that all these Leftist 527C outfits, Moveon and such, are all fine and dandy but the Swifties are dishonorable.

Posted by: Peter at August 6, 2004 01:10 PM

I agree with you, Peter. I see a lot of hypocrisy on the part of the left here. Kerry spent the entire convention highlighting his war record and then dared his opponents to look at it. Now, all of a sudden, he's asking 'how dare we?' MoveOn buys TV adds, stages protests, sponsors concerts, etc., and it's OK. A conservative organisation pulls a page from their playbook and now they're up in arms.

The louder Kerry and his supporters scream, the more inclined I am to believe that what these mae are saying is true.

Posted by: Jerry at August 6, 2004 02:07 PM

Correction: what these men [SwiftVets] are saying is true.

Posted by: Jerry at August 6, 2004 02:08 PM

The Swiftvets rebuttal can be found here (and, certainly, other places): http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/002418.html

Posted by: Jerry at August 6, 2004 02:30 PM

BTW Jerry:

Flashback to 1998. President Reagan was finishing his second term and the now-darling of the Democratic party, Gary Hart, was running in the primaries.

I know you meant 1988. ;-)

Posted by: McGehee at August 6, 2004 03:14 PM

''Please correct me if I misunderstand what you are trying to claim, because your assertions don't seem very reasonable to me.''

You misinterpreteted what i was saying entirely.

''The only people in Vietnam that could possibly know anything about John Kerry are the half-dozen men who were actually in his boat and that the other men in Vietnam, such as the me in his small unit who who he worked with every day and the doctors who treated him for the woulds for which he received purple hearts, can possibly know anything about him.''

I suggest you actually look deeper into this issue, instead of watching a patchy ad from Republican sympathisers. I have, and as it turns out most the men in the ad barely even knew Kerry.

''None of these men could possibly be telling the truth, simply because some (possibly all) of them are Republicans, but that the two Democrats that served with Kerry and are paid members of Kerry's campaign staff are being 100% honest.''

So none of THESE men could possibly be telling the truth, simply because they are democrats? Please. And you talk about hypocrisy.

At the end of the day, im not willing to argue this issue. They are stepping out of line, just as people who try and derail Bush by bringing up his somewhat dubious service record are doing. The right are quite hypocritical when it came to this. It was ok for them to leap to the defense to the defense of Bush's service record, but its not ok for Kerry supporters to try and defend him.

Posted by: Filthycommie at August 6, 2004 03:33 PM

FC:

So none of THESE men could possibly be telling the truth, simply because they are democrats? Please. And you talk about hypocrisy.

I never said that the veterans who are supporting Kerry aren't (or can't be) telling the truth. I'm just saying that you can't accept the word of one set of vets without reservation and then totally discount the word of the other set. Doing so makes you a hypocrite. I believe that the handful of veterans who are on Kerry's staff do believe that Kerry served honorably. I also believe that the 200+ veterans in Swiftvets belive that Kerry did not serve honorably. This means that Kerry's service in legitimately in question.

I suggest you actually look deeper into this issue, instead of watching a patchy ad from Republican sympathisers.

I have looked deeper into the issue. I have read numerous articles on the issue, including the link that you provided. George Elliott has retracted his statements regarding the Silver Star only, not any of his other statements. None of the 200+ other members of the group have retracted anything. Again, this legitimately calls Kerry's service into question. Maybe it is you who should look deeper into the issue, rather than just listening to the Kerry sympathisers.

They are stepping out of line, just as people who try and derail Bush by bringing up his somewhat dubious service record are doing.

First, I never said that the people calling Bush's serice record into question were out of line. Second, the people who did call Bush's service into question cannot call the Swiftvets out of line without engaging in hypocrisy. Many of them are doing so, hence my (completely true and factual) statement that there is a lot of hypocrisy on the left over this issue. Third, and most importantly, Bush has never made his service a major (or even minor, for that matter) part of his campaigns. Kerry, on the other hand, had made his service record the primary focus of his campaign. I discussed this in my original post. If Kerry is going to dare his opponents to "Bring. It. On." then he has no right to complain when they do.

It was ok for them to leap to the defense to the defense of Bush's service record, but its not ok for Kerry supporters to try and defend him.

I have never said that it isn't OK for Kerry's supporters to defend him. I'm all for an open debate concerning Kerry's service record. It seems to me that the only people who aren't open to debate on the issue are Kerry himself and his supporters. This is dubious, to say the least.

At the end of the day, im not willing to argue this issue.

Then you have lost. A complete refusal on your part to even debate an issue which your preferred candidate made the central issue of his campaign is intellectualy dishonest and does nothing but convince me that the Swiftvets are telling the truth.

Posted by: StumpJumper at August 7, 2004 01:32 AM

''I'm just saying that you can't accept the word of one set of vets without reservation and then totally discount the word of the other set. ''

.....Which im not doing. Im just pointed out the FACT that non of them actually served under Kerry's command, an illusion painted by Right wingers. I also question the motives of the Swift vets. Im not discarding their word.

''Second, the people who did call Bush's service into question cannot call the Swiftvets out of line without engaging in hypocrisy.''

I never associated myself with allegations Bush went AWOL. i steered clear of that kind of smearing.

''Many of them are doing so, hence my (completely true and factual) statement that there is a lot of hypocrisy on the left over this issue. ''

In which case, it exists on the right also as many are perfectly happy to try and debunk Kerry's military service, while maintaining Bush's should not be bought up.

''Kerry, on the other hand, had made his service record the primary focus of his campaign.''

I disagree with you, he gives it a lot of mention granted, but the ''primary focus of his campaign?''

''If Kerry is going to dare his opponents to "Bring. It. On." then he has no right to complain when they do.''

So if he stands up and makes attempts to defend these attacks on him, he is ''complaining?''

''It seems to me that the only people who aren't open to debate on the issue are Kerry himself and his supporters.''

The campaign has actually made several statements on the issue. Its not as if they are awkwardly staying silent.

''Then you have lost. ''

Dont be so immature. The reason i dont like arguing this issue as i disagree with the principle of this type of attack. Kerry served his time, was decorated and pulled out. Im sure the swift vets would be furious if someone tryed to question the legitamacy of their decorations, or their contribution to the war.....rightly furious too.

Posted by: Filthycommie at August 7, 2004 10:01 AM

FC, at least one of the Swiftees served on Kerry's boat, he was the Gunner's Mate. As the guy in the main gun tub he'd know what's going on.
As for your assertion that none of the other Swiftees were on that boat, it doesn't matter. I was in rifle platoons during most of my enlistment. Just because I was assigned to one squad didn't mean I didn't know what was going on in the other squads in my platoon, the other platoons in my company and the other companies in my battallion. Naturally the more removed the unit, the less detailled my knowlege but you can bet the rent money that I made it my business to know everything knowable about the squad and platoon leaders that were liable to be on my flank, especially after I made noncom rank. My life, and the lives of my men depended on knowing what they would do. If the platoon leader of the next platoon over was a hard charger, I had to know that, if he was a footdragger I had to know that, too. Otherwise I'd be out there with my dick in my hand and an open flank.
Nope, these Swiftees knew John Kerry. Question their motives if you wish, not their knowlege.

Posted by: Peter at August 9, 2004 09:50 AM

Peter: having served in both the Army Reserves and on active duty in the Navy (long story - don't ask) I agree with you 100%. The swift boats only had a crew of 1/2 dozen but they usually operated in groups and their crews were all part of the same unit. I, like you, have every reason to believe that each of the men in that group knew Kerry. More importantly, however, are the affidavits. Each of the affidavits referes to one or more specific claims by John Kerry. Each one is written by someone who had specific knowledge of the incident in question. For example, the doctor who treated the would from Kerry's first Purple Heart has signed an affidavit that claims that John Kerry lied about the nature of the wound. He knows better than anyone, save possibly Kerry himself, the exact details of the wound. These are not people simply saying that John Kerry lied, these are people who are debunking, very thoroughly and very credibly, specific claims. This makes their sworn affidavits very damning.

Posted by: Jerry at August 9, 2004 10:05 AM

Strangely, i cant comment in your latest thread regarding the swift vet smearing, so i'll comment in this one. Ive done a little research, and heres just some of what i found.

Kerry appeared with a dozen or so vets at the DNC. All of those men except Rassmann were the ones who served in the two boats that were under his command while he was over there. Im suggesting that in reality, THESE are the men who ''knew him best.'' I find it somewhat dubious that these men are totally blind to Kerry being a supposed lying phony.

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html

You can read all of Kerry's records at this site. He clearly has nothing to hide.....unlike a lot of the Swift Vets, which we'll look at now.

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

The same George Elliott at a Kerry press conference in 1996: "The fact that he chased an armed enemy down is not something not to be looked down upon but it was an act of courage. And the whole outfit served with honor..."[T]here was no question that it was above and beyond anything that we had seen down there in that case at that time frame...It just so happened that this one was so outstanding that the Silver Star was eventually awarded."

Even further back, look at this glowing review Elliot wrote in Kerry's Officer Fitness Report in 1969. Here is a passage -

"In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, LTJG Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at every opportunity. On one occasion, while in tactical command of a three boat operation his units were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush. This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several KIA. LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach. He has of his own volition learned the Vietnamese language and is instrumental in the successful Vietnamese training program. During the period of this report LTJG Kerry has been awarded the Silver Star medal, the Bronze Star medal, the Purple Heart medal (2nd and 3rd awards)."

So is Elliott a liar or a flip-flopper? Take your pick.

THIS is why i consider the motives of the Swift Vets, and this is why i feel have the right to question the reliability of this men.

Louis Letson: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first purple heart, because I treated him for that injury."

Letson was not under Kerry's command. Letson's name does not appear anywhere in any of Kerry's medical treatment files, so that allegation is deep-sixed.

Letson has a RAGING case of selective memory. This is from the 5/4/04 edition of the National Review Online: "Letson says that last year, as the Democratic campaign began to heat up, he told friends that he remembered treating one of the candidates many years ago. In response to their questions, Letson says, he wrote down his recollections of the time."

Adrian Lonsdale: "He lacks the capacity to lead"

Not only was Lonsdale NOT a member of Kerry's crew [none of these liars were, and therefore have no grounds when contemplating Kerry's leadership abilities], but he also pulled a flip flop. From the same Kerry for Senate press conference in 1996 where George Elliott was quoted praising Kerry:

"As far as I was concerned, the war was won over there in that part for that period. And it was mainly won because of the bravado and the courage of the young officers that ran the boats, the SWIFT boats and the Coast Guard cutters and Senator Kerry was no exception."

Hmmmmmm.....

Heres another interesting site...

www.latimes.com/news/poli...-elect2004

I'll pick out some very important facts, that help debunk the swift vets claims.

''Kerry testily denied initially pressing for the award, saying he simply reported the wound. 'Later on, I asked where it was or something,' he said, but insisted he played no role in obtaining the medal. 'It wasn't my decision.'

It was the Navy's. 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.''

If Letson did indeed treat Kerry for an injury, which is unlikely anyway.....why did he not put in a complaint at the time?

''.....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.''

I hope people will see the falseness of this pathetic smearing. This is little more than a piece of a propaganda, at a worse level than farenheit 9/11.

Posted by: Filthycommie at August 9, 2004 01:36 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:

Remember personal info?
YesNo
Comments: