Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » McCain Condemns Anti-Kerry Ad (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: McCain Condemns Anti-Kerry Ad
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Only because I see this as a standard tactic used by David Ricardo and others (IIRC - I am generalizing, but I seem to recall David as not being the only one that does this.......).
Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robertson, Ugly and Nohow
Member
Member # 1375

 - posted      Profile for Robertson, Ugly and Nohow   Email Robertson, Ugly and Nohow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Since I think I was the only one to actually make a reference to the funding, I better stand up and dispell the confusion I created:

I have nothing against anyone spending any amount of money to fund any type of political propoganda that they so choose. My jab was directed at campaign finance law, which seems like silly restrictions in light of the freedom of political speech that everyone else enjoys.

I apologize for the tangent. Carry on...

Posts: 450 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The following was posted by Daruma in another thread, but I think it deserves repeating here, though perhaps a link is more appropriate ( Daruma's Post (new thread)) ... I dunno... so here's the quote:

quote:
This story just keeps getting better and better....

Kerry's campaign lawyers has sent letters to TV station managers threatening to sue them for libel/slander if they air the SBVFT ad.

SBVFT hired their own lawyer who than sent their own letter to the managers...here's that letter, courtesy of Captains Quarters Blog

Dear Station Manager:

The purpose of this letter is to present some of the factual support for the advertisement "Any Questions?" produced and used by Swift Boat Veterans For Truth ("Swiftvets"), an organization properly registered under Internal Revenue Code § 527, and which has filed all required reports. Swiftvets is an organization led by Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann, USN (retired), Commander of all Swift boats in Vietnam during the period of John Kerry's four-month abbreviated tour in Swift boats between late November 1968 and mid-March 1969. A list of the 254 members may be found on www.swiftvets.com. A large majority of those who served with John Kerry in Swift boats in Vietnam and whose location is known have joined the organization. Thus, for example, sixteen of the twenty-three surviving officers who served in Coastal Division 11 with Kerry (the place where Kerry spent most of his time) have joined the organization, together with most of Kerry's Vietnam commanders and 254 sailors from Coastal Squadron One, ranging from Vice-Admirals to Seamen.

The purpose of Swiftvets is to present the truth about John Kerry's post-Vietnam charges of war crimes and John Kerry's own Vietnam record. Swiftvets is uniquely positioned to do so since it includes most of the locatable sailors and officers who served with John Kerry in Vietnam.

John Kerry has made his Vietnam record the central focus of his presidential candidacy, depicting purported Vietnam events in nearly $100 million in advertising. Copies of ads such as "Lifetime" and "No Man Left Behind" may be found on Kerry's website. Kerry's authorized campaign biography, Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War, by Douglas Brinkley (New York: HarperCollins, 2004) ("Tour"), centers on his short Vietnam tour and contains Kerry's account of these events. Additional accounts by Kerry of his Vietnam experience may be found on his website.

The Advertisement

A true and correct transcript of the advertisement entitled "Any Questions?" is attached as Exhibit 1. Affidavits are attached (as Exhibits 2 through 14) from each participant in the advertisement, except from John Edwards, the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee, whose often-repeated invitation to learn about John Kerry by speaking to the men who served with him begins the advertisement. The filmed comment of Senator Edwards has been made so many times as to be general knowledge.

As described in the attached affidavits, Al French (Exhibit 2), Bob Elder (Exhibit 3), Jack Chenoweth (Exhibit 7), Larry Thurlow (Exhibit 10), and Bob Hildreth (Exhibit 14) were all officers in charge of Swift boats in Vietnam in Coastal Division 11 with John Kerry. Coastal Division 11 was a small naval unit with about one hundred sailors and fifteen or sixteen boats which operated in groups of two to six boats. Each of these boat officers operated directly with John Kerry on numerous occasions. Van Odell (Exhibit 6) is a retired Navy enlisted man who also served in Coastal Division 11 on the Chenoweth boat, a few yards from John Kerry during Kerry's March 13, 1969 Bronze Star action.

Captain George Elliott, USN (retired), (Exhibit 4) was John Kerry's direct commander in Coastal Division 11, while Captain Adrian Lonsdale, USCG (retired), (Exhibit 9) was Kerry's administrative commander. Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann, USN (retired), (Exhibit 8) commanded all Swift boats (including Kerry's) in Vietnam. Each of these commanders interacted on numerous occasions with Kerry and, for example, are discussed for many pages in Kerry's own authorized book, Tour.

Dr. Louis Letson (Exhibit 5) was the doctor in Cam Rahn Bay who treated Kerry's first Purple Heart "wound," while Commander Grant Hibbard (Exhibit 11) was John Kerry's commander at Coastal Division 14 where Kerry claimed to have suffered the wound. Finally, Joe Ponder (Exhibit 13) and Shelton White (Exhibit 12) are veterans of Coastal Division 11 who were badly wounded near the Song Bo De River where Kerry served most of his short tour.

The Kerry campaign has utilized a revolving group of eight veterans from Coastal Division 11 (none of whom served with Kerry as much as two months). In stark contrast to this small stable of supporters, the veterans on "Any Questions?" have intimate knowledge of John Kerry or (in the case of Ponder and White) of the falsehood and injury of his false war crimes charges. Although many more of the over 250 signers of the Swiftvets' letter served directly with John Kerry, it would be hard to locate people with more detailed and first-hand knowledge of John Kerry's short Vietnam stay than those in the advertisement. They are well-suited to respond with first-hand knowledge to Edward's invitation. Their sworn affidavits are attached (in order of appearance in the advertisement) as Exhibits 2 through 14.

Kerry's obtaining of three Purple Hearts permitted him to leave Vietnam some 243 days short of the normal one-year tour. See Exhibit 20, Thrice Wounded Reassignment. Whether or not he fraudulently obtained these awards (the Purple Heart being among the most sacred of all awards) is critical to his true Vietnam story.

A. March 13, 1969: "No Man Left Behind" Incident

Attached as Exhibit 15 is Kerry's account of "no man left behind" where, in Tour of Duty, Kerry repeats his now-familiar story of returning, wounded by an underwater mine, to recover a Special Forces soldier, Jim Rassman, in a hail of fire pulling Rassman from the water with his bleeding arm. Tour, at 313-17. The story of Kerry's return to save Rassman, under fire and wounded from the mine, has been told in many millions of dollars of Kerry advertising. See Kerry website; see also, e.g., Kerry's full-page advertisement in The New York Times, which is attached as Exhibit 16.

Kerry's after-action report for that day is featured on his website. See Exhibit 17. KJW identifies the report as Kerry's. Likewise, Kerry reported his shrapnel wounds to the Navy in an injury report:

"LTJG Kerry suffered shrapnel wounds in his left buttocks and contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close aboard PCF-94."

Exhibit 18. Exhibit 17 likewise identifies Kerry's "injuries" as contusion right forearm (minor) (i.e., a small bruise) and a shrapnel wound left buttocks.

The regulations for the Purple Heart are attached as Exhibit 19 and, of course, exclude accidental injury and self-inflicted wounds (except non-negligent wounds in the heat of battle). Although Kerry's "minor" bruise could never entitle him to a Purple Heart, Kerry's reported shrapnel wound to his "buttocks" (although minor according to the treating physician) from an enemy mine would have entitled him to such an award (had he not been lying about its origin). Receiving the third Purple Heart, within three days Kerry had requested reassignment from Vietnam on the basis of three Purple Hearts -- some 243 days early. See Exhibit 20.

(i) The Purple Heart Lie

Kerry's third Purple Heart was his ticket home. It also was much of the basis of his Bronze Star, repeating "his bleeding arm" and shrapnel wound from the mine story. The problem is that his operating report was a total lie since Kerry's shrapnel wound "in the buttocks" came not from a mine at all as he falsely reported, but at his own hand. Larry Thurlow, an officer on shore with Kerry that day, recounts that Kerry's shrapnel wound came not from any mine, but from a self-inflicted wound when Kerry (with no enemy to be seen) threw a concussion grenade into a rice pile and stayed too close. See Exhibit 10, ¶ 3. This "brown rice" incident with rice/shrapnel lodged in Kerry from his own grenade is also recounted by James Rassman, a Kerry supporter and "the no man left behind" on page 105 of John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography By The Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best, by Michael Kranish, Brian C. Mooney, and Nina J. Easton (New York: Public Affairs, 2004) (the "Kranish book"). See Exhibit 21.

Most surprisingly, John Kerry himself (while falsely reporting to the Navy and public that he suffered a shrapnel wound from a mine explosion so as to get a third Purple Heart and go home) reflected in his own journal that his buttocks' wound came, not from any mine but, rather, from a grenade tossed into a rice cache by himself or friendly troops (in the absence of any enemy fire). "I got a piece of small grenade in my ass from one of the rice bin explosions." Exhibit 15, Tour, at 313; see also Exhibit 15, Tour, at 317. "Kerry . . . also had the bits of shrapnel and rice extracted from his backside." See also the sworn statement of participants that there was no hostile fire (Exhibits 6, 7, and 10). It also should be noted that the rice extracted from Kerry's backside could hardly be the result of an underwater mine, as Kerry claimed in his operating report.

The conclusion is inescapable: that Kerry lied by reporting to the Navy that he had been wounded by shrapnel in his backside from an enemy mine when in reality he negligently wounded himself and then lied about the wound in order to secure a third Purple Heart and a quick trip home.

(ii) The Bronze Star Lie

As recounted in the attached affidavits of three on-scene participants (and verified by many others present) Kerry's operating report, Bronze Star story, and subsequent "no man left behind" story are a total hoax on the Navy and the nation. As recounted in the affidavits of Van Odell (Exhibit 6), Jack Chenoweth (Exhibit 7), and Larry Thurlow (Exhibit 10) (and verified by every other officer present and many others), a mine went off under PCF 3 -- some yards from Kerry's boat. The force of the explosion disabled PCF 3 and knocked several sailors, dazed, into the water. All boats, except one, closed to rescue the sailors and defend the disabled boat. That boat -- Kerry's boat -- fled the scene. After a short period, it was evident to all on the scene that there was no additional hostile fire. Thurlow began the daring rescue of disabled PCF 3, while Chenoweth began to pluck dazed survivors of PCF 3 from the water. Midway through the process, after it was apparent that there was no hostile fire, Kerry finally returned, picking up Rassman who was only a few yards from Chenoweth's boat which was also going to pick Rassman up. Each of the affiants (and many other Swiftees on the scene that day) are certain that Kerry has wholly lied about the incident. Consider this: How could the disabled PCF abandon the scene of the mine? Why did Kerry have to "return" to the scene?

Kerry's account of this action, which was used to secure the Bronze Star and a third Purple Heart, is an extraordinary example of fraud. Kerry describes "boats rcd heavy A/W and S/A from both banks. Fire continued for about 5000 meters." Exhibit 17. In other words, the boats went through a double gauntlet at about 50 yards distance that was 3.2 miles long (comparable to Seminary Ridge at Gettysburg on two sides), and yet none of the other boats within feet of Kerry's boat heard a shot or suffered an injury after the PCF 3 mine explosion, except for John Kerry's buttocks rice wound of earlier origin.

Clearly, Van Odell is right when he says, "John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star . . . I know. I was there. I saw what happened." As Jack Chenoweth swore, "his account of what happened and what actually happened are the difference between night and day." Most poignantly, Larry Thurlow, whose brave actions saved the PCF 3 boat that day after Kerry fled, has the right to say, "When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry."

B. December 2, 1968 Purple Heart

On February 28, 1969, John Kerry received his first Purple Heart for an incident three months earlier, on or about December 2, 1968. Kerry's account of the incident is contained in Tour of Duty, pages 147 and 148 (Exhibit 23). Kerry claims to have been with two crewmen, Zaldonis and Runyon. See Exhibit 23. Neither Kerry, Zaldonis, nor Runyon claim to have seen any hostile fire. See Exhibit 24 (Kranish book, pp. 72-73). A Purple Heart cannot be given for a self-inflicted wound under the attached regulations.

Unmentioned in Kerry's Tour Of Duty version are the actual surrounding facts. Kerry, Lieutenant William Schachte, USN, and an enlisted man were on the whaler. Seeing movement from an unknown source, the sailors opened fire on the movement. There was no hostile fire. When Kerry's rifle jammed, he picked up an M-79 grenade launcher and fired a grenade at a nearby object. This sprayed the boat with shrapnel from Kerry's own grenade, a tiny piece of which embedded in Kerry's arm.

Kerry managed to keep the tiny fragment embedded until he saw Dr. Louis Letson. Dr. Letson's affidavit is attached as Exhibit 5. When Letson inquired why Kerry was there, Kerry said that he had been wounded by hostile fire. The accompanying crewmen indicated that Kerry was the new "JFK" and that he had actually wounded himself with an M-79. Letson removed the tiny fragment with tweezers and placed a band aid over the tiny scratch. The tiny fragment removed by Letson appeared to be an M-79 fragment, as described by the personnel accompanying Kerry.

The next morning Kerry showed up at Division Commander Grant Hibbard's office. Hibbard had already spoken to Schachte and conducted an investigation. Hibbard's affidavit is attached as Exhibit 11. Hibbard's investigation revealed that Kerry's "rose thorn" scratch had been self-inflicted in the absence of hostile fire. Hibbard, therefore, booted Kerry out of his office and denied the Purple Heart.

Some three months later, cf. Exhibit 22, after all personnel actually familiar with the events of December 2, 1969 had left Vietnam, Kerry somehow managed to obtain a Purple Heart for the December 2, 1968 event from an officer with no connection to Coastal Division 14 or knowledge of the December 2, 1968 event or of Commander Hibbard's prior turn down of the Purple Heart request. All normal documentation supporting a Purple Heart is missing. There is absolutely no casualty report (i.e., spot report) or hostile fire report or after-action report in the Navy's files to support this "Purple Heart" because there was no casualty, hostile fire, or action on which to report. The sole document relied upon by Kerry is a record showing the band aid and tweezers treatment by Dr. Letson recorded by deceased corpsman, Jess Carreon.

There are no witnesses who claim to have seen hostile fire -- necessary for a Purple Heart (even a rose thorn Purple Heart) -- that day. At least three witnesses, Dr. Letson (who spoke to the participants and removed the M-79 fragment), Lt. Bill Schachte (on the boat), and Cmdr. Grant Hibbard (whose investigation revealed Kerry's application for a Purple Heart to be fraudulent), are able to testify directly or based upon contemporaneous investigation that Kerry's first Purple Heart was a fraud. Thus, Lewis Letson's statement that "I know John Kerry is lying about a first Purple Heart" is conclusively established by the evidence. Like the third Purple Heart, Kerry's first Purple Heart was essential to his quick trip home.

C. Christmas In Cambodia

If there is a consistent[1] repeated story by John Kerry about his Vietnam experience, it is his story about how he and his boat spent Christmas Eve and Christmas of 1968 illegally present in Cambodia and, listening to President Nixon's contrary assurances, developed "a deep mistrust of U.S. government pronouncements." See Exhibit 24, Kranish book, p. 84. The point of his story was that his government and his commanders were lying about Kerry's presence in Cambodia on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. During a critical debate on the floor of the United States Senate on March 27, 1986, Senator John Kerry said:

Mr. President, I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia.

I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me . . . .

Exhibit 25, Congressional Record - Senate of March 27, 1986, page 3594.

By way of further example, Kerry wrote an article for the Boston Herald on October 14, 1979:

"I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."

See Exhibit 26.

The Christmas in Cambodia story of John Kerry was repeated as recently as July 7, 2004 by Michael Kranish, a principal biographer of Kerry from The Boston Globe. On the Hannity & Colmes television show, Kranish indicated that Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia was a critical turning point in Kerry's life.

The story is a total preposterous fabrication by Kerry. Exhibit 8 is an affidavit by the Commander of the Swift boats in Vietnam, Admiral Roy Hoffmann, stating that Kerry's claim to be in Cambodia for Christmas Eve and Christmas of 1968 is a total lie. If necessary, similar affidavits are available from the entire chain of command. In reality, Kerry was at Sa Dec -- easily locatable on any map more than fifty miles from Cambodia. Kerry himself inadvertently admits that he was in Sa Dec for Christmas Eve and Christmas and not in Cambodia, as he had stated for so many years on the Senate Floor, in the newspapers, and elsewhere. Exhibit 27, Tour, pp. 213-219. Sa Dec is hardly "close" to the Cambodian border. In reality, far from being ordered secretly to Cambodia, Kerry spent a pleasant night at Sa Dec with "visions of sugar plums" dancing in his head. Exhibit 27, p. 219. At Sa Dec where the Swift boat patrol area ended, there were many miles of other boats (PBR's) leading to the Cambodian border. There were also gunboats on the border to prevent any crossing. If Kerry tried to get through, he would have been arrested. Obviously, Kerry has hardly been honest about his service in Vietnam.

D. War Crimes

Returning to the United States, Kerry made speeches charging that U.S. forces in Vietnam were "like the army of Genghis Khan," that "crimes were committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of all levels of command," and that our officers in Coastal Division were like Lieutenant Calley. Kerry met on least two occasions with the North Vietnamese in Paris and is, in fact, honored as a hero in the war museum in Ho Chi Minh City. See pictures on WinterSoldier.com and SwiftVets.com. Joe Ponder is a widely quoted disabled vet from Coastal Division 11 who saw no war crimes but knows that Kerry dishonored our unit. Exhibit 13. Shelton White, a badly wounded Coastal Division 11 veteran, likewise saw no war crimes and remembers Kerry's betrayal. Exhibit 12.

Conclusion

As set forth at length, there is not only a reasonable factual basis for the statements in the ad; they are virtually conclusively established by the documentation.

Thank you for your kind consideration. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,

Original signed by John E. O'Neill


Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TaoJeannes
Member
Member # 1490

 - posted      Profile for TaoJeannes   Email TaoJeannes       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I originally said I'm not going to post on this until I read the book.

quote:
Originally posted by OhPuhLeez:
It's good that you posted to tell us that [Wink] .

Which is, sadly, a commentary on how badly my point was missed, and precluded four pages of silly speculation and the typical "We Good. You Bad" arguments of politics.

ABC did a story on this. Their whole thesis is that it won't sway many people one way or another. Republicans will believe it. Democrats won't.

Which sadly, is the way everything is now. We're not interested in facts, and the facts in dispute we will use for our side. That's partisanship.

Only being Ornery is supposed to mean we don't do that. It's supposed to mean we actually make decisions based on evidence.

And seeing as the information hasn't been published yet, and there's not much to go by, there's not much to discuss is there?

This whole thread is a joke.

Posts: 279 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TaoJeannes - I'd agree that there has been a sparsity of facts, and that there is a lot of people doing their best to ignore them, but I'd like to point out that this isn't so much about the book, as the ad, which is readily available. So, TaoJeannes, if you get a chance, take a read through the posts - there are many nuggets of actual, factual information hiding here and there.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
musket
Member
Member # 552

 - posted      Profile for musket         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Spinsanity's take on the SBVFT ad can be found at their site today--

Spinsanity

(For those Bush supporters who will doubtless object to Nyhan's "All the President's Spin," just remember that this site is as likely to castigate Kerry for spin, not to mention Michael Moore, Robert Scheer and other left wing spinners).

Posts: 1524 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gary
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TaoJeannes:

And seeing as the information hasn't been published yet, and there's not much to go by, there's not much to discuss is there?

There are signed affadavits by eyewitnesses to the events in question. That's quite a bit to go by unless you want to take the position that all these people are not telling the truth. Even when the book comes out, it will be based heavily on these accounts. They are just as valid now as they will be in a few weeks when the book arrives in stores.

javelin's posting of Daruma's post shows a wealth of links to evidence (although they are not web links but provided as part of the letter). I think we can safely assume that the evidence referenced in that letter exists - either that or SBVT hired the most incompetent lawyer in history as only a fool would reference nonexistant evidence knowing full well the media probe that will be trying to poke holes in it. No doubt the book will be presented with that evidence. At this point it appears there is a relatively high probability that the swiftees are telling a version of events that is more accurate.

You're right that most Democrats and Bush haters will refuse to believe it - they cannot afford to believe it. The strategy thus far was to use Kerry's Vietnam experience as proof of his great wartime leadership ability. Having it exposed as a fraud will tear down this strategy and cause potentially significant damge to Kerry's campaign. Denial is the only option left (deny, deny, deny - from the Clinton playbook).

While this will not sway Democrats, it will sway the vital undecided voters that could make or break either candidates chances. Kerry's best bet at this point is to release his military records (which he has refused to do so far) so he can refute these claims. That is, unless those records will confirm the swiftee's claims. In which case, his continued refusal will generate more speculation and be viewed by more than a few as proof he is hiding something and lend further credibility to the swiftees accounts.

[ August 10, 2004, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: Gary ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This evidence, provided in the letter from SBVFT, is so conclusive, there is a good chance it could destroy Kerry's campaign. It should. A man who perpetrates such fraudulent hoaxes and engages in such wholesale lying about his military service, and then uses that as the cornerstone of his claim to be the most worthy candidate for president, has no business getting a single vote from anyone in the country.

Notice that time when Kerry allegedly "risked his life" to "save Rasmussen." The eyewitness testimony is that when the other boats in the group converged on the damaged boat to render assistance, Kerry's boat was the only one to flee the scene. He only returned after it was clear there was no other hostile fire after the mine exploded. Does this sound like a man who can be counted on?

[ August 10, 2004, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gary
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kerry's claims about being in Cambodia are also falling apart.

quote:
In March 1986, Kerry said, during a speech on the Senate floor, that, "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared — seared — in me...."
Seared into him . Must be a pretty intense and vivid memory. And there's this:
quote:
...in September 1997, during a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific affairs, Kerry said, "I first was introduced to Cambodia when I spent Christmas Eve of 1968 in a river in Cambodia during the Vietnam conflict, and I found it to be a rather remarkable and very beautiful country...."
In fact, Kerry has a little momento of his time on that secret Cambodian mission:
quote:
... a profile of Kerry that appeared in the Washington Post in June 2003, Kerry revealed that he kept an old camouflage hat from the war in a secret pocket in his briefcase. "My good luck hat," Kerry told the paper. "Given to me by a CIA guy as we went in for a special mission in Cambodia."
With Kerry's searing memory and his souvenir hat as a guide, it's pretty clear he spent Christmas 1968 in Cambodia. Of course, there's a problem:
quote:
A former member of John Kerry's swift-boat crew says the Democratic presidential candidate's account of spending Christmas 1968 in Cambodia is not true. Steve Gardner, who served on board PCF-44 under Kerry's command in December 1968, as well as part of January 1969, says that at the time, in the area in which Kerry and his crew were operating, it was not possible to take a swift boat to Cambodia.

"It was physically, totally, categorically, across-the-board impossible to get into the canal that went to Cambodia with a swift boat," says Gardner. "There were concrete pilings that were put in the water...plus, the Navy kept patrol boats there to make sure nobody went in. When I was on the 44 boat, it was a physical impossibility to take a swift boat into Cambodian waters."

The claims of "they didn't directly serve under Kerry" won't hold up here - Gardner did. In case you think Gardner is alone, Kerry's other commanding officers have denied any Cambodian incursion, as well. In fact, Gardner says that PCF-44's "nothernmost patrol area" was the town of Sa Dec, about 50 miles from Cambodia.

I would say Kerry was simply lost except for the fact he has his lucky hat and those searing memories. Of course, given his propensity for self inflicted injury maybe he was shooting at himself and simply missed this time? [Razz]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would suggest that his "searing" memories were placed in him by hypnosis by the enemy, trying to create a Manchurian Candidate, but judging by the precedents, the memories would have had to be placed in him by self-hypnosis. Hmm, that could explain a lot.
Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OhPuhLeez
Member
Member # 1597

 - posted      Profile for OhPuhLeez   Email OhPuhLeez   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, this thread wasn't a joke, until now.

TJ, the wink equals joke, or at least it does for me. Sorry you didn't see the humor in it.

Javelin, thanks for saying that - there is actual, factual information on BOTH sides being presented here.

Posts: 1258 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gary
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OhPuhLeez:
Well, this thread wasn't a joke, until now.

... there is actual, factual information on BOTH sides being presented here.

How is it a joke? I made a saracstic comment about Kerry missing when he tried to shoot himself. Is that what you're referring to?

I am well aware of the factual information supporting the swiftees (as most reading this thread are as well) but I see virtually none supporting Kerry's version of events. Can you give a quick recap of Kerry's supportive facts?

Or is this the new tactic? Diverting to Elliott's rebuttal of the Globe article did not work. Diverting to Kranish did not work. Calling everyone liars has failed. Now just assert the whole thing is "a joke" so it can be dismissed without having to provide the supportive evidence that backs up Kerry's claims of heroism and secret missions to Cambodia? His credibilty regarding Vietnam is already seriously damaged with the blatant fabrications he propogated during his congressional testimony so anything Kerry says is already suspect. Throw the contradictory statements of over 250 people, a number of them eyewitnesses, and Kerry's in a lot of trouble to refute their claims.

Please note, I'm not trying to be caustic although I can see how you would take it that way - apologies if you do. I am interested in how Kerry can defend against this since it could quite possibly destroy his campaign. Everything so far is simply shooting the messenger to avoid addressing the content of the message.

[ August 10, 2004, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Gary ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OhPuhLeez - I agree - on both sides. Gary, I guess if no one else will take it on, I'll go ahead and throw out some of the facts for "the other side" [Wink] - but I'll do it later when I have more time. 'Course, I'd love it if someone who is "on the other side" would do the work for me [Smile]

[ August 10, 2004, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OPL, IIRC, aren't you a Lawyer?

What's your legalese interpretation or analysis of the letter written and sent out to TV stations by SBVFT's lawyer?

Is it convincing/credible to your legalistic POV -trained mind?

I see it as pretty convincing and credible - and am not in the least bit surprised that the majority of Kerry supporters here at Ornery didn't even post any kind of response to the thread I posted containing the contents of this letter. I was initially going to post it in this thread, but after some thought, I believed that it was a farily comprehensive document that deserved it's own discussion. I see it pretty much went unresponded to and am glad that javelin reposted it here. It's pretty substantial and not easily refuted or rebutted on it's factual merits....care to try?

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"It's pretty substantial and not easily refuted or rebutted on it's factual merits...."

The problem is that the document is made up entirely -- entirely -- of "he said, she said" statements and is therefore pretty much impossible to rebut. All you can do is decide whether the individual claims in the reply are credible, as there's certainly no hard evidence either way.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
True Tom - but they are all first hand witness accounts admissable as testimony in a court of law. It's not as if these are all heresay accounts.

What I want to see is some factual refutations. So far (not so much here, but in the blogosphere and internet media) the only refutations I've seen were personal attacks and implications that the SBVFT are just right wing attack dogs being paid to lie about John Kerry.

I think McQ from Q&O makes a salient point with regards to the conflicting memories in the SBVFT's letter and the Kerry camp:

quote:
So we have multiple people who were there, to include Kerry and his crew, saying Rassmann wasn't even on the 94 boat with Rassmann claiming he was. We have Rassmann claiming there was a 2nd explosion while none of the others say there was. And last we have Kerry and Rassmann claiming there was hostile fire, when the crews of the other three boats involved, say there was none.

So, with Rassmann's version so out of kilter with just about everyone elses (to include Kerry and crew on two of the points), why in the world should we give his story any crediblity at all?

In Rassmann's defense, its been over 30 years and he's probably told the "revised" version so many times he may actually believe that's what happened now. But for the other Swifties who had no reason to tell it any way but the way it happened (as that was dramatic enough) its interesting that they, 30 plus years later, seem to all remember it the same, but completely differently than Rassmann (and Kerry).

So who's telling the truth? Well I'd have to fall on the side of the SBVT version. If a boat is disabled, the first thing you do is secure it and rescue/treat the crew. If there were hostile fire that would be a very difficult task and its very hard to believe that none of the boats doing the rescuing would escape at least damage from rounds impacting from the machine guns which were supposedly erupting from each bank. But none of the PCFs, to include the 3 boat or the 94 boat, had any such damage. Trust me, the VC were not that poor as marksman. Had there actually been fire, the evidence would have been there.

Rassmann apparently got blown off the PCF3 boat. Might he have been a little loopy from a mine powerful enough to lift the 3 boat 2 feet in the air? Could he have been confused? You bet. But that possibility is never raised. He, of all the participants and because of what had happened to him, was the most likely not to remember "how it really happened".

But to stick to the story in the face of a huge volume of conflicting testimony, to include that of Kerry, makes his credibility suspect. Its the "its my story and I'm stickin' with it" defense, and its beginning to fall apart.


Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OhPuhLeez
Member
Member # 1597

 - posted      Profile for OhPuhLeez   Email OhPuhLeez   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not a lawyer - I only play one on TV (and not very well, I might add).

Sorry I haven't been more communicative on this thread today, I'm bombarded here at work (fake trial law is hard [Wink] !)

I'll be back in a few!

Posts: 1258 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"But to stick to the story in the face of a huge volume of conflicting testimony, to include that of Kerry, makes his credibility suspect."

Just to play Devil's Advocate, in what other way should he behave if he WERE right and everyone else was wrong?

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good point, and true.

Like the blogger notes - he doesn't doubt that he's sticking to his story because he no doubt believes it to be true. Eyewitness point of views can vary greatly - especially with the passage of so much time.

What is interesting to note is that so many other people present have entirely different recollections that basically agree with one another for the most part, and the only dissenting memories come from the one guy who was rescued by Kerry (that too no doubt colors his perceptions and recollections - perfectly understandable, of course.)

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The important facts are that Kerry chose his Vietnam war record as his primary bon fides for being elected. he did not use his two decade record of being a Senator. Nor did he mention any bills or laws he authored. As a matter of fact, he also didn't co-sign onto many other Senators' bills either. The few things he did endorse were usually not supported by a majority Senate.

The Winter Soldiers Investigation was named as a play on words for the Thomas Paine indictment of the "Sunshine Patriots" who only fought in fair weather and went home rather than suffer the privations of Valley Forge. What is most interesting about this Detroit event held at a Howard Johnson restaurant, is how the KGB had such a prominent role in it. Thanks to the opening of KGB files because of Glasnost and Peristroika, we learned how deeply the Soviets had infiltrated the Sixties U.S. Anti-War movement. Although most of the speakers at the event were just anti-war protestors who never even went to Vietnam and lied about their presence and experiences there, there were quite a few KGB agitators who were there. Since many of the "official" speakers who actually did have service in Vietnam never attended the event - persons unknown stole their identities and left us the legacy of our soldiers being rapists and baby killers. We will never know how many were KGB spies and how many were just misguided activists who believed their convictions made their lying justifiable.

Kerry grew up in France and Switzerland during his school years. When he did come home to the U.S., he spent his summers at Hianisport with John and Robert Kennedy and their families. It was JFK's history of PT-109 that inspired Kerry to use the military as a stepping stone to politics. He joined the Navy in exectly the same way that Bush joined the Air National Guard, as a way of thwarting the draft and avoiding the high probability of dying as a foot-soldier. When either man joined, the branch he entered was not actively engaged in combat in Vietnam, but either had the equal possibility of being called up. Being a navy flier got McCain into the war, and a POW. Water Tars were considered a safe bivuoac. To those who are young and did not live then, please understand, it was hard to get into either place. The Navy was full up, and many strings had to be pulled for Kerry to get in instead of being draftee cannon fodder in the army. Bush, as we know from the records, took early testing when he was still in school and aced his leadership tests, vaulting over the lower qualified enrolees who took their tests months later. Any legacy points he got from his father were a wash with whatever Kerry got from his father and the Kennedy clan.

As a matter of fact, that speech that Letterrip posted that Kerry gave before congress was entirely crafted for him and coached by Robert Kennedy's speech writer. For the same reason he went into the Navy, and then into a PT-109 billet, he took reenacted home movies of his heroics. One of the most compelling features of the new book is how his crew talked about him after he got permission to leave because of his third Purple Heart. They said he must have finally got enough footage for his future political campaigns.

Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK.

1. John Kerry is one of the two:
a. A miniature Audie Murphy, brave and courageous above fault.
b. A chicken who has less right to wear a uniform then Pee Wee Herman.

2. Why should I care? I've met many brave men in my day, superb soldiers and leaders in battle, who couldn't run a church bingo much less a country. Being a good soldier doesn't make you a good president. Clinton proved that. Ole slick willie wasn't my boy, but he didn't run the country into the ground either.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gary
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
OK.

1. John Kerry is one of the two:
a. A miniature Audie Murphy, brave and courageous above fault.
b. A chicken who has less right to wear a uniform then Pee Wee Herman.

2. Why should I care? I've met many brave men in my day, superb soldiers and leaders in battle, who couldn't run a church bingo much less a country. Being a good soldier doesn't make you a good president. Clinton proved that. Ole slick willie wasn't my boy, but he didn't run the country into the ground either.

1. More likely between the two extremes you present. The SBVT accounts show he is not necessarily brave and courageous above fault. During his time in Vietnam, Kerry no doubt engaged in things that required at least some courage. I would place him as an average guy who happened to understand how to work the system to his advantage and also kept his focus on the political ramifications at all times. It's clear he was using Vietnam to build a political resume (based on the JFK template) - quite farsighted of him actually. I wonder how his focus on political resume building affected his abilities and colored his judgement. It appears to be quite a lot.

2. You should care because Kerry says this is how he can prove his ability to lead. In essence, he is saying his leadership then is the same leadership he will provide today. If the SBVT accounts are true, then that leadership will be significantly flawed. If these accounts are true, Kerry is telling us we can expect a leader that will lie under oath, misrepresent events to improve his own self image, flee at the sight of danger and that he won't care who his lies hurt. That is, if the SBVT account are accurate and so far there has been little to refute them.

What I find astonishing also is that Kerry chose to run with this as the centerpiece of his campaign. He had to know there were significant problems with his version of events that would be brought up and that there would be a number of people investigating this. Why would he base so much on something so problematic? This may turn out to be the single biggest strategic mistake ever in a presidential campaign.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some of you who were not born until after Vietnam, may be inclined to regard it as past history. Those of us who lived through it, especially being of draft age, take it personally. There are lessons that must be learned from this past, lest we be condemned, as George Santayana said, to repeat it. Kerry embodies and would keep alive everything that was really, truly wrong with the Vietnam experience for our nation.
Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Some of you who were not born until after Vietnam, may be inclined to regard it as past history."

That's because, being history, it's past.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From Ev

the "Facts" about Kerry
being in cambodia during christmas 1968, are the statement of
one man on teh crew who says Kerry was not within fifty miles
of cambodia (who was no way involved with the charts), and a
statement by another man on the crew that the swiftboat was
within a couple miles of the cambodian border, one way or the
other, and statements by kerry that they were in cambodia, as
well as a sarcastic letter sent to his commanding officers
about being "the furthest boat inland," which pretty much
would have meant on or across the cambodian border.

Wasser, Kerry, and Gardner all obviously have political slants
here, and to reject Kerry and Wasser's arguments, in favor of
Gardners (the one man of the three who would have aboslutely
NO idea where the boat was on a given day, given his job on
the boat), is an obvious example of partisan bias.

Posts: 4002 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OhPuhLeez
Member
Member # 1597

 - posted      Profile for OhPuhLeez   Email OhPuhLeez   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
George Bush in Iraq is so incredibly reminiscent of the US in VietNam, how is that not history ALREADY repeating itself?
Posts: 1258 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OhPuhLeez - care to elaborate that? I mean, that's a HUGE assertion, and, based on my knowledge of history and the current situation in Iraq, I cannot see any real parallels.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Read this quite a few times, still don't get it - can someone translate for me (I must be english challenged today)?:

quote:
From Ev

the "Facts" about Kerry
being in cambodia during christmas 1968, are the statement of
one man on teh crew who says Kerry was not within fifty miles
of cambodia (who was no way involved with the charts), and a
statement by another man on the crew that the swiftboat was
within a couple miles of the cambodian border, one way or the
other, and statements by kerry that they were in cambodia, as
well as a sarcastic letter sent to his commanding officers
about being "the furthest boat inland," which pretty much
would have meant on or across the cambodian border.

Wasser, Kerry, and Gardner all obviously have political slants
here, and to reject Kerry and Wasser's arguments, in favor of
Gardners (the one man of the three who would have aboslutely
NO idea where the boat was on a given day, given his job on
the boat), is an obvious example of partisan bias


Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
manji
Member
Member # 1912

 - posted      Profile for manji     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I guess I'll reply to your point, even though I was pretty sure Mr. Pete and Mr. Everard were banned, and I don't know what to think of friends nipping into the cookie jar for them. I guess that's how it goes, though, and I may be overstepping myself.

According to the swiftvet website, Steve Gardner is not alone in his assertion that Kerry's boat was not in Cambodia during Christmas. Bill Zaldonis and Steve Hatch, two former crew members and supporters of John Kerry (part of his "band of brothers"), say the same thing.

Make of that what you will.

[ August 11, 2004, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: manji ]

Posts: 143 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gary
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by msquared:
From Ev

the "Facts" about Kerry
being in cambodia during christmas 1968, are the statement of
one man on teh crew who says Kerry was not within fifty miles
of cambodia (who was no way involved with the charts), and a
statement by another man on the crew that the swiftboat was
within a couple miles of the cambodian border, one way or the
other, and statements by kerry that they were in cambodia, as
well as a sarcastic letter sent to his commanding officers
about being "the furthest boat inland," which pretty much
would have meant on or across the cambodian border.

Wasser, Kerry, and Gardner all obviously have political slants
here, and to reject Kerry and Wasser's arguments, in favor of
Gardners (the one man of the three who would have aboslutely
NO idea where the boat was on a given day, given his job on
the boat), is an obvious example of partisan bias.

I assume Wasser completely corroborates Kerry's story? I have not seen anything from Wasser, perhaps this can be located?

Why would Gardner have no idea about their location? Was he forbidden to look at the charts or ask about their location? Are you saying only Kerry and Wasser are allowed to know the postion of their boat and everyone else is kept in the dark? That doesn't make much sense. Everyone should know the approximate location at the very least so if they get sunk they have an idea of which direction to walk to get back to friendly territory.

Even more important though, is Gardner's assertion about entering Cambodia being a physical impossibility. He claims there were concrete pilings placed in the river that would have prevented a boat from entering Cambodia in addition to Navy patrol boats to insure nobody crossed the border. If it's a physical impossibility to enter Cambodia as Gardner claims, then he doesn't have to know where they are - it just can't be Cambodia.

Before Gardner's awareness of their position (or lack of) can become an issue, someone needs to explain how Kerry got his boat over the concrete pilings and past the patrol boats that were there to prevent this very thing. Either that, or come up with some way to disprove Gardner's claim that it was impossible for patrol boats to enter Cambodia. It should be easy enough for some reporter to confirm or deny Gardner's story.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OhPuhLeez
Member
Member # 1597

 - posted      Profile for OhPuhLeez   Email OhPuhLeez   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've read a few different pieces on this - these are the ones that stuck with me:

USA Today

An opinion piece from Bruce Mulkey, at Common Dreams, a progressive website. I'm sure many here won't like this source but, again, it's an opinion and I found it interesting.

Military.com - an interesting oped piece from last November I've kept it bookmarked for a while.

These are the ones that most stuck in my mind - the last one in particular where it talks about the similarities being less in Iraq and more in Washington.

Posts: 1258 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Okay, let me answer these articles point by point:

1. USAToday
(a) Uniting the enemy - okay, it's had the effect of bringing out in the open some of the problems we've been having with some of our allies. What does this have to do with Vietnam? I don't remember any of our allies abandoning us over this conflict. Anyone?
(b) U.S. forces against a guerrilla insurrection - okay, I can partially see the point here. However, the Vietcong were not attacking American soldiers, in general, because they were American, or because they were occupying their country - they were attacking because they were allied with the South Vietnamese government. There is a HUGE difference here at this point.
(c) A disputed rationale for going to war - as I've opinioned many times before, the only reason that there is any dispute here is because the media tried to turn our rationale into sound bits, and instead lost the messages. Did Bush ever say we were going in to find and remove WMD's? Or did he really say that Saddam had the capability to make them, probably already had them, and that we had to go in to stop him from using them? Think back, take a look around. And was that the only reason given for going in? No. There is no way you can reasonably believe that was the only reason we went there. That may have been the reason that a lot of American's supported, but come on, the only reason?
(d) Overly optimistic predictions about the task ahead - sorry, I don't think so. I was watching the new coverage pretty close, and every single press conference given by the administration was careful to not pretend that it was going to be a cakewalk, or that it was a cakewalk. And they never declared the war won, and they didn't underplay the fact that there was going to be problems. They did say they thought the Iraq's should welcome us, but they made no promises. The media, on the other hand (especially Fox news), were having a field day talking about how easy it all was, and how good things were going, etc., etc. So, is that Bush's fault? I think not. During the Vietnam war, the misinformation about us "winning" this and that came from the administration. In this war, it was mostly Fox news.
(d) 'Is this a quagmire?' - we can't answer this right now, and we shouldn't try. If we are talking about increasing the number of troops in country next summer, then we are in trouble. But the Iraqi government just came into power. They need help to consolidate. Give a little time here people, and encourage the U.S. government to work hard at making the Iraqi government (and armed forces) autonomous.

(2) The Striking Similarities Between Vietnam and Iraq: Can You Say Quagmire?

As you said, I don't like the source. Too many digs, too much popular myth in this article. I'll just mention a few things:
(a) earning NRA badges? Scout Badges? That's what seems to be implied. There are no NRA badges in Boy scouts.
(b) "All my life I’d thought my country could do no wrong." - silly rabbit, trix are for kids! Losing your innocence, in this case, is a good thing. Vietnam wasn't where our government/country started to make mistakes.
(c) "Johnson’s doubts about his actions were overshadowed by his flawed perception of manhood and his belief that he could not let a “little pissant country” prevail over the most powerful nation in the world." - wow, what an interesting load of speculation. Makes me want to believe everything this guy says....
(d) "When, however, we tried to drum up support for an assault on Iraq, the majority of the people of the world, including millions in this nation, rose up in powerful protest. For the first time massive peace rallies took place prior to the first shot being fired. And members of the UN refused to condone what many regarded as an illegal, if not immoral, action." I'm not going to waste my breathe going into an extended commentary on why this is so, so factually wrong.
(e) "The cycle of change continues to accelerate. While it took years to grasp the contradictions in the arguments for the war in Vietnam, in Iraq it has only taken months. President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney told us that we’d be welcomed with open arms. We were not. We were told that weapons of mass destruction would be discovered. They were not. We were told that the conflict would be over quickly. It is not. We were told that we’d be pulling most of our troops out in a matter of months. We have not. We were told that selling Iraqi oil would pay for rebuilding that nation. It will not. According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, we’ve already spent $74 billion on the war and Bush has asked our enabling Congress for an additional $87 billion. Is this another example of a huge credibility gap or are these guys utterly incompetent?" No we weren't, no, that isn't true, no, no no. Come ON!
(f) "In a September 6 Zogby poll, Bush’s overall approval rating had dropped to 45 percent. A few emboldened politicians have challenged the administration’s handling of the Iraq war. But I knew the tide had turned when I recently heard an NPR reporter referring to Bush’s claim that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Nigeria as “bogus.” Faux (Fox) News may still have their blinders on, but much of the mainstream media has cast off the pseudo-patriotism that consisted primarily of going along with almost everything that the current administration said and did that was in any way related to the war. And for Bush and company, there’s no turning back the clock. Wagging the dog will not help. Raising the terror alert level to orange or red won’t do it. Playing on our fears has run its course. You can only yell “wolf” so many times and get away with it. Of course, danger does exist in the world, but we must avoid being manipulated by our fear of these dangers." Woof woof! And now the article is COMPLETELY gone into "rage against the president" zone. Insinuate and attack! Whoohoo!
(g) "Let’s do a little quarterbacking, and this time let’s do it before decades pass. Again the president and his advisors appear to have underestimated the tenacity and resourcefulness of our foe. Again our political leaders have underestimated the resources that it would take to wage the war in Iraq. Again our military experts have underestimated the amount of time it would take to complete our mission. Again the president has underestimated the importance of a clear mission for our soldiers and for the nation (WMD? Democratic Iraq? Objective du jour?). Again the presiding administration has underestimated the casualties that would result on both sides (so far 292 Americans dead and 1,478 wounded, 52 coalition troops dead, more than 6,000 Iraqi civilians dead and an estimated 10,000 Iraqi troops dead)." Show me the numbers. Boy ,this guy steams me. As I said early, every single thing this guy has said is coming from sources outside the administration. Bush is NOT responsible to hold to goals set by people outside the government and his administration, unless he has endorsed them. He has not! Stop insinuating that he has. Geesh!
Okay, the rest is same old same old. The guy thinks he knows everyone's motivations, and everyone's minds. Regardless of the fact, this is what Bush thinks, so there! Bull!

3) Joe Galloway: Iraq No Vietnam, But There Are Parallels
(a) "The failures of American political leadership that plagued this country in Vietnam are being repeated in Iraq. Lyndon Johnson used a dubious excuse, the Tonkin Gulf incident, to march his countrymen into Vietnam. George W. Bush, under the tutelage of Dick Cheney, waved the threat of weapons of mass destruction and links to al-Qaeda to march America into Iraq." I doubt I have to repeat my opinion on this one.
(b) "Johnson and his secretary of defense, Robert Strange McNamara, were contemptuous of their senior military advisers and spurned their counsel at every turn. Although President Bush keeps a comfortable distance from such matters, his vice president and his secretary of defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, seem equally contemptuous of their military subordinates. " Based on what?
(c) "If you want one more similarity, consider the incredible egos of McNamara and Rumsfeld. McNamara listened only to his small staff of Whiz Kids; Rumsfeld listens to a similar coterie including Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and the dark prince himself, Richard Perle." Based on what?
(d) "They share a breathtaking arrogance. They brook no word of opposition. They persist in believing that somehow they can graft Jeffersonian democracy onto ancient Mesopotamia, a land bathed in blood and ruled by terror for millennia. When they're wrong, they never admit it. Never." Based on what? (am I repeating myself?)
(e) "A large part of the trouble unfolding in Iraq can be laid directly at the feet of Cheney, Rumsfeld and their people. They made no plans for postwar Iraq. No plans to secure the buildings and symbols of government in Iraq. No plans to rebuild a shattered economy, infrastructure and nation. No plans to secure law and order in a fractious, violent place." Based on what?
(f) "They listened instead to their own counsel and to the whisperings of exiles who hadn't lived in Iraq in 40 years. They ignored the warnings of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. They ignored nearly a year of detailed studies and plans for postwar Iraq because the study was done by the despised State Department." Links? References? Anything?
(g) "
It took Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon nearly a decade to fail in Vietnam. Cheney and Rumsfeld could do it in Iraq in a year." Okay, well, at least he used the word "could".

*sigh* These are good examples with why I have trouble with these kinds of articles. I hate reading op/ed pieces - I prefer factual reporting. I LIKE reading op/ed pieces that are well referenced and where the opinions are carefully tied to facts.

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gary
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kerry is waffling out on his Cambodia claims:
quote:
... today[Aug 11, 2004], on Fox News' "Fox and Friends," Kerry Campaign Advisor Jeh Johnson had this to say to the show's co-host Brian Kilmeade:
JOHNSON: John Kerry has said on the record that he had a mistaken recollection earlier. He talked about a combat situation on Christmas Eve 1968 which at one point he said occurred in Cambodia. He has since corrected the recorded to say it was some place on a river near Cambodia and he is certain that at some point subsequent to that he was in Cambodia. My understanding is that he is not certain about that date.

KILMEADE: I think the term was he had a searing memory of spending Christmas - back in 1986 in the senate floor in Cambodia.

JOHNSON: I believe he has corrected the record to say it was some place near Cambodia he is not certain whether it was in Cambodia but he is certain there was some point subsequent to that that he was in Cambodia.

Wonder how Wasser is feeling about now? (assuming he was backing up Kerry's story) Talk about getting left twisting in the breeze. Kerry has now destroyed Wasser's credibilty and as well as the credibility of any who stood by him and his claim of spending Christmas Eve in Cambodia. How many of his "band of brothers" supported this story?

Kerry's waffling leaves the door open for him having been in Cambodia are least once. When was it then? It's a pretty narrow window of time - only 4 months. Can he tell us when he was there?

Perhaps now we have what was the inspiration for Kerry's Cambodia incursion. Instapundit has the original October 14, 1979 Boston Herald story -- where Kerry says he remembers spending Christmas, 1968 in Cambodia and hearing President Nixon deny that troops were there -- in original form. The entire quote is:
quote:
On more than one occasion, I, like Martin Sheen in "Apocalypse Now," took my patrol boat into Cambodia.

In fact, I remember spending Christmas Day of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese Allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. etc. [I think we all know the rest by now]

Kerry, like Martin Sheen ... yeah. When is the earliest known quote Kerry entering Cambodia? Would be interesting to see if Coppola inspired Kerry or perhaps Kerry inspired Coppola.

[ August 11, 2004, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: Gary ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OhPuhLeez
Member
Member # 1597

 - posted      Profile for OhPuhLeez   Email OhPuhLeez   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On McNamara - he's got interview after interview, and an entire book, on the lessons of Vietnam and what went wrong.

Here's a link:
http://archives.obs-us.com/obs/english/books/mcnamara/forum.htm

Here's another:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/11/interviews/mcnamara/

And in this interview, too:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0125-01.htm

Did you see the movie "The Fog of War"? I haven't yet - but it's coming up on my Netflix queue.

Posts: 1258 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gary
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Off on a tangent: What's up with the edit and post dates on my previous post? I didn't edit it an hour later.

EDIT: and the post date of this one is after the edit date so something goofy happened here. Isn't there a time out period for edits anyway? Something like 15 minutes?

EDIT 2: But check it out, the edit time is one hour after the original post time on this one too!

[ August 11, 2004, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: Gary ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OhPuhLeez
Member
Member # 1597

 - posted      Profile for OhPuhLeez   Email OhPuhLeez   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think it's a right-wing conspiracy [Razz]
Posts: 1258 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The movie looks pretty interesting. Missed the part where McNamara came up?
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OhPuhLeez
Member
Member # 1597

 - posted      Profile for OhPuhLeez   Email OhPuhLeez   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In the movie or in this post? The whole third link I gave talks about him, you asked based on what source, and I replied based on the man himself talking.

In the movie - well, he's the WHOLE movie.

Posts: 1258 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry OhPuhLeez - I wasn't very clear. Based on your reply, are you referring to this link: "Joe Galloway: Iraq No Vietnam, But There Are Parallels"? You are saying that you are supporting what was said in that article with the further links you gave me? Is that right?

Thanks!

[ August 11, 2004, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OhPuhLeez
Member
Member # 1597

 - posted      Profile for OhPuhLeez   Email OhPuhLeez   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yep - that's correct - or at least that they have numerous places to go to find out what McNamara feels regarding Vietnam for source material, which you asked about. Am I claming they actually SIFTED through all of this material? No - but considering they actually INTERVIEWED him, one would imagine they did their homework first (at least I hope they did!)
Posts: 1258 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1