Kerry gonna get PWNT by former commanders

[Badger]

News Article (http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/SpecialReports/archive/200405/SPE20040503a.html) :owned:

[Rooster]

Good. That's what I'm talkin' bout!

[Swifty_Johnson]

Where were these guys during the early primaries!

Swifty

[Allison]

I'll be interested to see the details of this: Who is signing; how many of the "hundreds of former commanders and military colleagues" actually served with Kerry; Who are the C.O.s that are signing, and what sort of evaluations did they give Kerry at the time; what is the basis for their claim that Kerry is "unfit? After these questions are answered, I'll be able to give a more informed opinion.

But, judging solely from that article, it sounds like their primary beef is with Kerry's anti-war activities after he left Vietnam. If that's their only complaint, personally, I don't see how that would make him "unfit to be Commander in Chief." I know there are a lot of people out there who believe that a serviceman who is critical of the military in any way is some sort of a traitor, and they're certainly entitled to that belief, but I don't see it that way.

Certainly, this has the potential to hurt Kerry. But with only 25 people showing up for the signing, I'm not sure they'll get the media coverage they're looking for. We'll see how it plays out.

Oh, and let's not forget this is a 527 organization. That's not to say that their claims aren't valid because of this fact, just that we have to keep in mind that they have a stated political agenda.

[Canidae]

First, it is against military regulations to speak out against the President while you are in the military.

If he was out doing his anti-war stuff while still in duty and say spoke out about the President's role in it, that is seriously not good.

You can't have anything bad at all about the President even on your personal property (say a bumper sticker on your car). They can get into serious trouble for that.

Now, these are also people that got to see first-hand Kerry's leadership abilities. Frankly, if his C.O's come out and say this guy is a poor leader.... that is saying alot.

Obviously we want a President that has good leadership qualities. These military men could give a very insiteful view on that aspect of Kerry.

[Allison]

First, it is against military regulations to speak out against the President while you are in the military. I can't speak to that. I don't know anything about those regulations or whether Kerry was still, in fact, active when he began his anti-war activities.

Now, these are also people that got to see first-hand Kerry's leadership abilities. Frankly, if his C.O's come out and say this guy is a poor leader.... that is saying alot.I think we should stress that "some" of these people have first-hand experience of Kerry's abilities. But, if his former C.O.s do say that Kerry was a poor leader 30 years ago, that is something to consider. I'd wonder, though, why those concerns were never mentioned in any of Kerry's evaluations at the time, and, whether or not those criticisms still apply 30 years later. Again, I'll be curious to see exactly what they have to say, and what their basis is for saying it.

[Canidae]

Not all military records are going to be open to the common person's viewing pleasure.

[Allison]

Of course not. :) But, I'm not sure what records you're referring to. Are you talking about the regulations you mentioned earlier about active military personnel speaking against the president, or are you talking about Kerry's service record?

[Rooster]

Conduct unbecoming an officer. I'm not sure how long after you're decommissioned that it can apply, but even if he wasn't subject to such a charge - many are going to feel that he besmirched the honor of the military by lying to Congress about so-called atrocities, just because he didn't like the war.

[Badger]

I think that some people on the Dem side are trying to derail Kerry so Hillary can run in '08.

Really really think that.

[Kegg OBeer]

I've been saying that since Gore lost in 2000 Badger...

I honestly tried to listen to Kerry's speech the other day when he was explaining what he thinks needs to be done in Iraq. Unfortunately, he spent more time throwing insinuations that Bush is a bad president and mud slinging than outlining his strategy...
So basically the guy says a whole lot of nothing... If he was the great and experienced leader of men that he claims, he'd be a lot more inspiring. The truth of it is that he's just a bag of wind with nothing really important to say and his whole campaign is based on making Bush look bad rather than make himself look good. I guess the point is to make himself the "lesser of two evils" choice on the ballot... Or at least that's my guess based on his actions thus far.

[]LoL[Harm]

So basically the guy says a whole lot of nothing... If he was the great and experienced leader of men that he claims, he'd be a lot more inspiring.
That's been every president for the past 10 years for me. Lots of ideas, no plans and all they know is their "ideas" are better than the other guys'.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Remember that Kerry was only in Vietnam for 4 months before being reassigned, and word is he had an admiral's protection. It looks like Kerry is about to take a hard fall if the alligations are true, that would explain why he got his medals.

Swifty

[Allison]

I'd be really surprised to see anything major come of this. In the absense of a smoking gun, people are going to believe what they choose to believe. I imagine this whole issue is going to do about as much damage to Kerry as Bush's National Guard service has done to him: Little, if any.

[Allison]

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is taking some criticism for being a political puppet organization.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/05/04/swift/index_np.html

[Canidae]

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is taking some criticism for being a political puppet organization.
Is anyone surprised by this? Of course they will because the Democrates don't want what they are saying to hurt their candidate.

[Rooster]

And moveon.org isn't??

(Campaign Finance Reform is still a huge joke, and unconstitutional)

[Allison]

Lol, no, Rooster. Moveon.org is also an organization with a stated political agenda.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Salon is so biased it isn't even funny. The make propganda look tame.

Swifty

[Badger]

UPDATE KERRY OWNED BY THE DOCTOR WHO TREATED HIM IN NAM!!!

OWNAGE (http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200405041626.asp)

:fuct: :owned: :owned: :fuct:

[Rooster]

He was doing anything he could (lie) to get his 3 PH's and get out of there. Coward.

My uncles did two or three tours (1 did 2, 1 did 3) as helicopter gunners. This guy, typical spoiled little rich kid trying to be all noble, then realizing what deep shit he was in and running home with his tail between his legs.

[Allison]

You may be right, Roo. But I still find it hard to believe that you can criticize a spoiled little rich kid who volunteered to go to Vietnam, when his counterparts, whom you defend, would not.

Let's assume you're right. Let's assume the worst. This spoiled little rich kid, who could have easily remained stateside, volunteers for duty in Vietnam, and sometime during his 2nd tour he gets scared, or pusses out, or whatever. He devises a plan to get home, and succeeds. Tell me how that is worse than another spoiled little rich kid who's maybe too scared to even go in the first place? How is Kerry's failure to stick it out so much worse than someone who wouldn't even try?

Your criticisms of Kerry may be perfectly legitimate. But it astounds me how you can continue to attack him so ferociously on this point while giving your guy a free ride.

[Noleader]

Salon is so biased it isn't even funny. The make propganda look tame.

Swifty
How so? Examples?

Our President might beleive in blind faith but I sure as hell don't.

[Badger]

"But it astounds me how you can continue to attack him so ferociously on this point while giving your guy a free ride."

I think because this thread is about Kerry being a liar. Not about anything else, and trying to bring up anything else only leads to derailing the point of this discussion.

Now if we want to talk about Bush or Nader or Santa Claus, find some stuff and post it. KK?

[spyder913]

I think because this thread is about Kerry being a liar. Not about anything else, and trying to bring up anything else only leads to derailing the point of this discussion.Not if it's to put the comments in context or the right perspective.

If I make a thread about how thing A is horrible, but in reality B is worse than A, bringing up B in the thread about A to put it in context may be necessary.

[Rooster]

Bush didn't lie to get out of Vietnam. His father pulled some strings and got him in the Reserves. Wouldn't you want to do that for your children?

If my son went to war and lied/exaggerated stories to get out of there as fast as he could I would be VERY ashamed of him.

[Canidae]

MY dad meet a guy that was a helicopter gunner. (Actually turned out this guy was protecting my dad and his group on the ground but they didn't meet until years later)

Anyways, this guys has multiply scars from gun shot wounds. You know what, he got shot, got treated, and jumped right back in the fray.

If that doctor is telling the truth, (which we have no reason to not believe him), then Kerry is a coward and a liar and does not deserve that medal.

Bush, well, I don't know the whole story there. If his dad pulled strings say without Bush knowing it... thats one thing... thats a dad butting in the protect his son.

If Bush asked his dad to pull strings, then he is a coward too, but at least he doesn't go around lying about being a war hero.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Examples of Salon's liberal bias.

Stike 1 - Hillary's story Get a FREE copy of Hillary Rodham Clinton's "Living History" when you join Salon Premium today

Strike 2 - Right Hook Conservatives say Bush is drifting on Iraq and that Fallujah should be crushed, but they've been conspicuously quiet about the photos of flag-draped coffins.

Strike 3 - John Ashcroft joined the right-wing crusade to smear the 9/11 commission this week. But the bipartisan panel has unearthed too much new information to be ignored

Is this enough?

Swifty

[Allison]

Thank you, Canidae. You're an unexpected breath of fresh air. :)

Guys, I'm not throwing stones at Bush here. I've said many times I think all this digging into someone's past to try and find a shred of impropriety is a bunch of hooey ... no matter who the target is. And you won't see me throwing any of those stones. But it really galls me when people flatly reject criticisms of their candidate without consideration, while readily believing the worst of their candidate's opponent.

Let me ask this regarding Kerry: Isn't possible that, with the exception of his first purple heart, he did serve bravely? Isn't it possible that he truly was an idealistic young man committed to the idea of service to one's country? Maybe he got a little carried away with the acquisition of medals. Maybe after that first incident, (let's say, for the sake of argument, that it's true he lied about the circumstances surrounding that injury) he realized he had been wrong, but was too ashamed to say anything. Maybe other than that one day, he did serve bravely and well. Isn't it just as possible to assume this as it is to assume he was just a coward trying the entire time to get out? What does it serve to think of him in the most simple and the most negative terms? And what does it serve to judge, and negate, his entire service based on this one incident?

Let me ask one more question of you, in particular, Rooster. Is your chief complaint about this the fact that Kerry may have lied, or that he hasn't admitted it? If he held a press conference tomorrow and said, "You know, I was a young man in extraordinary circumstances . I made a mistake. I wouldn't do the same today," would you still criticize his service record?

[Swifty_Johnson]

Kerry's biggest problem is what he did when he came back is greatly over-ridding what he did there.

Yes, Kerry did win a bronze star for an act of bravery. Unfortuantly he wiped that all away with what he did after the war. It wasn't that he protested the war, that was his right. What irks the veterns is that he LIED under oath in testominy about what he saw.

Swifty

[Allison]

It wasn't that he protested the war, that was his right. What irks the veterns is that he LIED under oath in testominy about what he saw.

Swifty
Link please. :)

[Canidae]

I always have more respect for someone that comes out and tells the truth.

But

and its a big but (snickers)

The fact that he came out and allowed his publisicts to make him out to be some huge hero in the war and now there are lots and lots of soldiers and commanders (not to mention the doctor that treated him) that are coming out against this, has put him so far in the whole respect wise, that even if he came clean, I could not respect him enough now to change my vote.

Its just too late.

My problem is, I am not overly happy with some of the Bush stuff either. But for me, I have to go with who I think runs along the same ideas as me, or as close as I can get and right now, its Bush. If someone in a different party meets it better, than I would vote for them.

[]LoL[Harm]

LINK!!!: http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4018&n=1

My problem is, I am not overly happy with some of the Bush stuff either. But for me, I have to go with who I think runs along the same ideas as me, or as close as I can get and right now, its Bush. If someone in a different party meets it better, than I would vote for them.
Good stuff.

[Canidae]

OMG that link is funny.

[Noleader]

Examples of Salon's liberal bias.

Stike 1 - Hillary's story Get a FREE copy of Hillary Rodham Clinton's "Living History" when you join Salon Premium today

Strike 2 - Right Hook Conservatives say Bush is drifting on Iraq and that Fallujah should be crushed, but they've been conspicuously quiet about the photos of flag-draped coffins.

Strike 3 - John Ashcroft joined the right-wing crusade to smear the 9/11 commission this week. But the bipartisan panel has unearthed too much new information to be ignored

Is this enough?

Swifty
Strike 1 - Ok they give away Clintons book. They are not claiming it to be true or saying they wrote it. This example is no good.

Stike 2 - Ok show we a different well established news source that says this is not the case.

Stike 3 - Yea the wording is a bit sharp. I would think this one and only this point would prove your case. Do you have a link to this item? Would like to see the statment in context.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Okay, some lessons for you Noleader.

If a website is giving away any political book FREE if you subscribe, than they endose the politics of that person. They give away Hillary's book, they are liberal, they give away Hannity's book, they are conserative.

Any website that used phrases like "Left-Wing Crusade" or "Right-Wing Crusade" are slanted in the other direction.

Are you still trying to say Salon is non-biased?

Swifty

[Allison]

Yeah yeah.. it has a left slant. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have valid news. Judge the stories on their merit, not on the source. Badger's last link was form an obviously biased source, but that alone doesn't mean the facts of the article are untrue, and I certainly didn't see you dismissing it simply because of the source.

[Swifty_Johnson]

I never use places like Salon or Newsmax as sources becasue of their slants. It's hard to get any credible info from them, and when you do it's always hard to get the real truth from their slant.

Swifty

[Allison]

I often view known, biased news sources, both liberal and conservative. Although it's often painful, I think it's important to hear both sides of an issue, not just the side I'm comfortable with. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle, and I think I'm enough of a skeptic not to be influenced by, what I think are very obvious, methods of manipulation and persuasion, and to separate the fact from the BS analysis.

Besides, it's not so easy to spot bias and fallacy when someone is saying something you agree with. But, if you spend enough time recognizing it in the opposition, then it becomes easier to recognize in yourself and others whom you agree with. And that's my goal. I don't want to participate in, support, be persuaded by, or lured into ad hominem attacks, appeals to emotion, popularity, fear, or any other commonly used fallacy, even if it supports my position.

Basically, for me, logic is a muscle that needs to be exercised. And one of the ways I exercise that muscle is by practicing spotting fallacy in obviously biased sources, so that I can recognize it easier when it's more subtle.

I know. I'm a freak.

[Kegg OBeer]

You may be right, Roo. But I still find it hard to believe that you can criticize a spoiled little rich kid who volunteered to go to Vietnam, when his counterparts, whom you defend, would not.

Let's assume you're right. Let's assume the worst. This spoiled little rich kid, who could have easily remained stateside, volunteers for duty in Vietnam, and sometime during his 2nd tour he gets scared, or pusses out, or whatever. He devises a plan to get home, and succeeds. Tell me how that is worse than another spoiled little rich kid who's maybe too scared to even go in the first place? How is Kerry's failure to stick it out so much worse than someone who wouldn't even try?

Your criticisms of Kerry may be perfectly legitimate. But it astounds me how you can continue to attack him so ferociously on this point while giving your guy a free ride.

You're assuming here that Bush was 'afraid' to go to Vietnam. The fact is that if he was trying to avoid Veitnam, it would have been much easier for his rich father to tie him up in college for the duration rather than the National Guard. In the NG he still had a chance of being sent there. At least a much greater chance than being exempt for being a student.

The problem I have with all this is that Bush never actually claimed to be any kind of war hero. He simply stated that he had been in the National Guard during the conflict. Whatever you might assume about his daddy being rich is just that... an assumption. There were much more reliable ways for his daddy to get him out of it, so frankly any criticism of his service seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

On the other hand, Kerry has been running all over the country bragging about being a war hero. I have all sorts of problems with this. First and foremost, as any real veteran would tell you, the only heroes there were the ones who didn't come back. This is a well known fact to all vets and is uniformly agreed upon by them. Secondly, this whole purple heart business stinks. I don't care where you got your wound from. A wound that's treated with a simple bandaid is not worthy of a purple heart. If it were than any man who got so much as blisters on his feet three times would have been sent home.
Most inportantly, the fact that he dishonored himself and the men he served with by accusing them of baby killing, hooch burning, etc is what 'really' puts us vets over the edge. Quite frankly, if he actually witnessed these things taking place, he should have presented them to military justice immediately. The responsible parties would have been sent to court martial. By (allegedly) not doing this and taking it to the open press instead raises at the very least heavy suspicion. Even worse, by helping to cover up war crimes by not reporting them, he is an accomplice.

By this train of logic, Kerry is not a war hero at all, he is exactly the opposite. He's a war criminal. And now.... a total liar.

[Allison]

Kegg, I never assumed anything about Bush. Check the language I used. See the word "maybe" in there? My point was that the worst is being assumed of Kerry by some of his critics, including you, without the benefit of doubt, while at the same time you automatically assume the best of Bush. If you assume Kerry is a coward for coming home, then you can't very well object if someone else assumes Bush was also a coward for never going.

And I don't know who you're arguing with. I've never compared Bush's service to Kerry's. I've never criticized or demeaned the service of either of them. Nor have I ever claimed Kerry was a war hero, only that his entire record of service is not negated by what may have been one bad decision.

And that's what I'm talking about now and always: fairness.

You are perfectly entitled to your criticisms of Kerry. I understand there are veterans out there who are offended by his after-war activities. I understand there are veterans out there who are offended by one of his Purple Hearts. But when those criticisms include misrepresentations or assumptions about his activities, then I will call you on it. I do the same for Bush.

And here's one for you now: Kerry never claimed to have witnessed any "baby killing." Thus, your basis for calling him a "war criminal" is flawed. If you want to condemn him for his anti-war activities, then do so. There's certainly a lot of material out there to work with. But you only weaken your credibility by basing your argument on untruths.

Here's a quote from a 1971 interview with Kerry, which is what I think you're referring to.
There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed, in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones, I conducted harassment and interdiction fire, I used .50-caliber machine guns which were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages," Kerry said in 1971.

He later said that he was angry then, and that his use of the word atrocity in that statement was "innapropriate" and "excessive," but "honest."

In his testimony that same year before the Senate Foreign Relations Commitee, he spoke of true atrocities that he said had been relayed to him by other soldiers since he'd been home. But he never once said that he had witnessed them himself.

[Noleader]

Bush didn't lie to get out of Vietnam. His father pulled some strings and got him in the Reserves. Wouldn't you want to do that for your children?

If my son went to war and lied/exaggerated stories to get out of there as fast as he could I would be VERY ashamed of him.
I would be more ashamed of the guy that did not go... If his dad did not pull the strings I bet him and clinton would have been roommates in Canada

[Noleader]

MY dad meet a guy that was a helicopter gunner. (Actually turned out this guy was protecting my dad and his group on the ground but they didn't meet until years later)

Anyways, this guys has multiply scars from gun shot wounds. You know what, he got shot, got treated, and jumped right back in the fray.

If that doctor is telling the truth, (which we have no reason to not believe him), then Kerry is a coward and a liar and does not deserve that medal.

Bush, well, I don't know the whole story there. If his dad pulled strings say without Bush knowing it... thats one thing... thats a dad butting in the protect his son.

If Bush asked his dad to pull strings, then he is a coward too, but at least he doesn't go around lying about being a war hero.How many of you guys took a round for this country. Taking a bullet for this country and not wanting to do it again does not make you a coward. If he man shot himself in the foot or something I could agree but hell. So let me get this strait, if your son was shot in combat, becoming shell shock as a result, you would be ashamed of him?

Thank god and all things holy my parents only expect realistic goals of me.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Taking a bullet for this country and not wanting to do it again does not make you a coward. If he man shot himself in the foot or something I could agree but hell. So let me get this strait, if your son was shot in combat, becoming shell shock as a result, you would be ashamed of him?

Do you know what the doctor was saying?

Kerry claimed he was hit with an enemy rifle bullet while under fire.

The Doctor claims the item was a shell splinter that his crew claimed came from a mortar round KERRY fired at close range.

So appearently Kerry did frag himself.

Swifty

[Allison]

Kerry claimed he was hit with an enemy rifle bullet while under fire.

The Doctor claims the item was a shell splinter that his crew claimed came from a mortar round KERRY fired at close range.
Again, so quick to believe anything negative about the opposition.

Balance check:

1. Kerry has said he got the injury when he and his crew engaged Vietcong fleeing on the beach. He said he wasn't sure where the shrapnel came from.

2. This doctor is not the person who signed the medical report relating to the injury. Not that that invalidates his statement, but it certainly doesn't support it.

Edit:

I'm not saying that the claims by this man are untrue. I'm saying we should view them with a healthy skepticism.

Let me ask you, if some man suddenly came out of the woodwork, claiming he remembered talking to Bush when he was in the guard, and that Bush told him he hadn't reported for duty in weeks ... would you believe him as readily as you do this doctor?

[Swifty_Johnson]

Again, so quick to believe anything negative about the opposition.

Appearently you don't know what claims and appearently mean. I made no statements as to the validty of the claims, just repeated what was said. Also the CLAIM is the boat wasn't under fire at all, he just shot a mortar.

Swifty

[Allison]

Ahhh, perhaps you should edit your previous post then. Your statement, "Kerry claimed he was hit with an enemy rifle bullet while under fire," wasn't directly attributed to the doctor. And the word "apparent" means obvious or clear. So, apparently you are claiming some validity in the doctor's statement, or else, why would it be so obvious that "Kerry did frag himself?"

But thanks for insulting my understanding of the English language, anyway.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Hey, no problem Allison, but my post needs no editing.

When I saw the doctor interviews, he said those things, I am exactly relaying what the doctor said.

apparently

Appearing as such but not necessarily so

Yup, I misspelled it, but used the right term.

Swifty

[Rooster]

Yall sound like... (alli, you knew this was coming)... Clinton debating the word IS.

[Allison]

Hehe... except in this case, Swifty is Clinton. :p