To Set The Record Straight: How the Swift Boat Veterans Defeated John Kerry

[ZoEd]

If Kerry's testimony pissed so many people off to include these SB guys over 25 years ago then why didn't they go after him the moment they saw him running for anything?

If someone pisses me off...I am going to stay on that @ss until I take a chunk of it..

That is why I am having a hard time believing these swift boat guys aren't politically motivated.

I can't even tell you who's running for what in my own great state of WV let alone Mass. His antics weren't public knowledge until he ran for a very public office like president. I'll admit if somebody I knew was running for an office that I had knowledge of I'd probably go public but again, Who TF was John Kerry until he decided to run for president? Oh yea, that's right. He was the scarecrow on Wizard of Oz. I kid, I kid. :laugh:

[Kelvin Bryant]

Sure the Swift Vets were "politically motivated." They were formed to keep Kerry from becoming President, which is obviously a political office. However, that doesn't mean they were working for Republicans - as I posted earlier, the FEC cleared them of that charge after the election.

Many of his former comrades were ticked off about his false "war crimes" testimony, but they didn't realize that he had also misrepresented his tour in Vietnam until 2004. That's why nobody went after him on that basis during his earlier Senate campaigns.

[Destino]

Research the situation... when Kerry was earning awards in the armed forces at least a few of these guys described Kerry in glowing terms. It was after he turned against the war that they got mad. It was when President Bush needed them, and his people turned up the money to fund them, that they suddenly found their voice.

If he was so bad then why didn't they voice this at the time? Were they lying then or now? An example: George Elliott, a swifty, recommended Kerry for the silver star. When Bush needed help to defeat someone that wasn't dodging the war... suddenly Elliott changed his mind.

I'm sorry but when you suddenly decide the person you recommended for the silver ****ing star is a bad person during a presidential campiagn I have to wonder. Even if it was Kerry's anti-war activities that did it - did he or didn't he deserve the friggin award... because whatever he does after the fact changes nothing. We can't go back and say someone didn't win a superbowl because they bad mouth the NFL later.

[Destino]

Sure the Swift Vets were "politically motivated." They were formed to keep Kerry from becoming President, which is obviously a political office. However, that doesn't mean they were working for Republicans - as I posted earlier, the FEC cleared them of that charge after the election.

Many of his former comrades were ticked off about his false "war crimes" testimony, but they didn't realize that he had also misrepresented his tour in Vietnam until 2004. That's why nobody went after him on that basis during his earlier Senate campaigns.

Ah I see... he was a fine soldier until he became anti-war. In your world it's honest to change the past based on what comes after the fact? Where were all the complainers before he went anti-war? If what they claimed was true he should have been hated at the time he was running around killing unarmed men and faking injuries, right?

BTW - you never told me that free republic screen name.

[The_cavalierman]

Well, wouldn't you say that he would have a greater impact as the President of the United States than he would as one of 50 senators. Personally, I would prefer that neither he or Ted Kennedy be in the U.S. Senate, but they impact a lot less than if either one of them were in the White House. :2cents:

The driving factor for me is that the guy is lying about something very impactful in my life. I am not worried about the politics one bit.

If Kerry testified and pissed me off 25 years ago I would be on that @ss for 25 years...

I wouldn't wait....that is bogus and politcal and it makes me question the motivation of the Swift Boaters.

[The_cavalierman]

Sure the Swift Vets were "politically motivated." They were formed to keep Kerry from becoming President, which is obviously a political office. However, that doesn't mean they were working for Republicans - as I posted earlier, the FEC cleared them of that charge after the election.

Many of his former comrades were ticked off about his false "war crimes" testimony, but they didn't realize that he had also misrepresented his tour in Vietnam until 2004. That's why nobody went after him on that basis during his earlier Senate campaigns.

I can only speak for myself as a combat veteran but...

1. If someone I served with made false allegations during congressional testimony I would be all over it and I would stay on it.

2. If someone I served with misrepresented their record at any time I would be all over it and I would stay on it.

What bothers me most is these swift boat guys were not defending the honor of those who served....they were playing political games.

Don't hide behind the flag and make claims about honor while playing political games.

[The_cavalierman]

Ah I see... he was a fine soldier until he became anti-war. In your world it's honest to change the past based on what comes after the fact? Where were all the complainers before he went anti-war? If what they claimed was true he should have been hated at the time he was running around killing unarmed men and faking injuries, right?

BTW - you never told me that free republic screen name.

I saw you ask this before....What is the free republic?

[TrumanB]

The driving factor for me is that the guy is lying about something very impactful in my life. I am not worried about the politics one bit.

If Kerry testified and pissed me off 25 years ago I would be on that @ss for 25 years...

I wouldn't wait....that is bogus and politcal and it makes me question the motivation of the Swift Boaters.

Personally, I could care less about the motivation behind them or if it was politically motivated. I think Kerry is a scumbag and got what he deserved.

There used to be only one name that my father (a Vietnam vet) would not allow uttered in his house: Jane Fonda. When Kerry launched himself onto the national stage to run for president, his name was added to my father's list due to his traitorous testimony before Congress. Do not underestimate the pure hatred that many Vietnam vets have for this man.

[The_cavalierman]

Personally, I could care less about the motivation behind them or if it was politically motivated. I think Kerry is a scumbag and got what he deserved.

There used to be only one name that my father (a Vietnam vet) would not allow uttered in his house: Jane Fonda. When Kerry launched himself onto the national stage to run for president, his name was added to my father's list due to his traitorous testimony before Congress. Do not underestimate the pure hatred that many Vietnam vets have for this man.

I agree that Jane Fonda was an idiot scumbag.

I am not sure what Kerry said during his testimony but if it pissed his fellow veterans off that much I just do not understand how they would let him do anything without catching flak from veterans groups.

If someone pissed me off like that they would never have a free moment ever again. Maybe that is just me...but that is how I feel about it.

I would not wait for years and then all of a sudden break out with a case of the @ss.

[TrumanB]

I agree that Jane Fonda was an idiot scumbag.

I am not sure what Kerry said during his testimony but if it pissed people off that much I just do not understand how they would let him do anything without catching flak from veterans groups.

If someone pissed me off like that they would never have a free moment ever again. Maybe that is just me...but that is how I feel about it.

I would not wait for years and then all of a sudden break out with a case of the @ss.

Well, take my father as an example. He said he knew about Kerry's testimony to Congress before he ran for president, but it wasn't a big issue with him until he actually started to run for president.

Things change dramatically when someone is on the national stage. It is similar to the "dirt" that is being uncovered on a lot of the current presidential candidates in both parties. These are folks that have been in public positions for years, but no one really cared or knew about some of their statements until they started to run for the presidency. Do you think 99% of Americans knew about the statements Huckabee made concerning AIDS when he was governor of Arkansas? Of course not.

[ATV]

I don't know what a former Rear Admiral would have to gain unless he himself was involved in the political arena.

Political Arena.....

On August 27, syndicated columnist Robert Novak presented his interview with retired Rear Admiral William L. Schachte Jr. -- who claims to be the commander on the boat* and witness to the events leading to Senator John Kerry's (D-MA) first Purple Heart -- as decisive evidence supporting the anti-Kerry group <A href="http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/swift_boat_veterans_for_truth">Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's allegation that Kerry did not deserve the award. John E. O'Neill, co-founder of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and co-author of Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, cited Schachte in his book and in television appearances. While Novak wrote that Schachte "said he is a political independent who has voted for candidates of both parties," Schachte has a history of political contributions heavily weighted to Republicans, including $1,000 to George W. Bush's presidential campaigns in both 2000 and 2004.

Since 1997, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Schachte has contributed $8,500 to federal candidates or national political organizations. All but $1,750 of those donations have gone to Republican candidates or to the Republican Party:

2004

$250 to Senator Charlie Condon (R-SC)

$1,000 to President George W. Bush ®

2003

$500 to Representative James W. Demint (R-SC)

2001

$1,250 to Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

$250 to Representative Joel Hefley (R-CO)

$250 to Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO)

$250 to Henry Brown (R-candidate in SC)

2000

$250 to Republican Party of South Carolina

$750 to Henry Brown (R-candidate in SC)

$500 to Representative John M. Spratt (D-SC)

$1,000 to then-Governor George W. Bush ®

$250 to H.B. "Buck" Limehouse (R-candidate in SC)

1999

$500 to Senator John W. McCain (R-AZ), presidential candidate

1998

$250 to Representative John M. Spratt (D-SC)

$1,000 to Representative Bob Inglis (R-SC)

$1,000 Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC)

1997

$250 to Representative John M. Spratt (D-SC)

On August 27, writer and blogger Joshua Micah Marshall noted that Schachte is the new law partner of David A. Norcross at the law firm Blank Rome LLP. According to Blank Rome's website, Norcross "was recently appointed Chairman of the Republican National Convention's Committee on Arrangements for the 2004 Republican National Convention."

From http://mediamatters.org/items/200408270007

Just the facts.

[ATV]

I have a published book out on this topic based on hundreds of interviews and two years of research. It has 1,200 footnotes....

So you've quoted many liars and many other people who have also quoted liars? Wow. Now you and Ann Coulter have something else in common.

You, on the other hand, think you're scoring points by parroting discredited DNC talking points from 2004 and copying junk from Wikipedia.

Discredited what? The only thing I've provided are facts. Facts. With links.

[Kelvin Bryant]

I'm sorry but when you suddenly decide the person you recommended for the silver ****ing star is a bad person during a presidential campiagn I have to wonder. Even if it was Kerry's anti-war activities that did it - did he or didn't he deserve the friggin award... because whatever he does after the fact changes nothing. We can't go back and say someone didn't win a superbowl because they bad mouth the NFL later.

The guy who signed off on Kerry's Silver Star is retired Navy Captain George Elliott. He said in 2004 that he would never had done so if he had known the facts of the matter at the time. His sworn affadavit is here.

[The_cavalierman]

Political Arena.....

On August 27, syndicated columnist Robert Novak presented his interview with retired Rear Admiral William L. Schachte Jr. -- who claims to be the commander on the boat* and witness to the events leading to Senator John Kerry's (D-MA) first Purple Heart -- as decisive evidence supporting the anti-Kerry group <A href="http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/swift_boat_veterans_for_truth">Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's allegation that Kerry did not deserve the award. John E. O'Neill, co-founder of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and co-author of Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, cited Schachte in his book and in television appearances. While Novak wrote that Schachte "said he is a political independent who has voted for candidates of both parties," Schachte has a history of political contributions heavily weighted to Republicans, including $1,000 to George W. Bush's presidential campaigns in both 2000 and 2004.

Since 1997, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Schachte has contributed $8,500 to federal candidates or national political organizations. All but $1,750 of those donations have gone to Republican candidates or to the Republican Party:

2004

$250 to Senator Charlie Condon (R-SC)

$1,000 to President George W. Bush ®

2003

$500 to Representative James W. Demint (R-SC)

2001

$1,250 to Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

$250 to Representative Joel Hefley (R-CO)

$250 to Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO)

$250 to Henry Brown (R-candidate in SC)

2000

$250 to Republican Party of South Carolina

$750 to Henry Brown (R-candidate in SC)

$500 to Representative John M. Spratt (D-SC)

$1,000 to then-Governor George W. Bush ®

$250 to H.B. "Buck" Limehouse (R-candidate in SC)

1999

$500 to Senator John W. McCain (R-AZ), presidential candidate

1998

$250 to Representative John M. Spratt (D-SC)

$1,000 to Representative Bob Inglis (R-SC)

$1,000 Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC)

1997

$250 to Representative John M. Spratt (D-SC)

On August 27, writer and blogger Joshua Micah Marshall noted that Schachte is the new law partner of David A. Norcross at the law firm Blank Rome LLP. According to Blank Rome's website, Norcross "was recently appointed Chairman of the Republican National Convention's Committee on Arrangements for the 2004 Republican National Convention."

From http://mediamatters.org/items/200408270007

Just the facts.

QTF:applause:

[Kelvin Bryant]

Ah I see... he was a fine soldier until he became anti-war. In your world it's honest to change the past based on what comes after the fact? Where were all the complainers before he went anti-war? If what they claimed was true he should have been hated at the time he was running around killing unarmed men and faking injuries, right?

Now you're just twisting the facts beyond all recognition. I've already said that the Swift Vets didn't know Kerry was filing false after-action reports at the time. It took Brinkley's book, Kerry's campaign stories, and an in-depth investigation to bring that out.

[Kelvin Bryant]

In my experience, most people aren't particularly interested in learning the truth. What they really care about, and are willing to fight for, is defending what they already believe.

That'll be my last comment for this evening.

[Mad Mike]

Political Arena.....

On August 27, syndicated columnist Robert Novak presented his interview with retired Rear Admiral William L. Schachte Jr. -- who claims to be the commander on the boat* and witness to the events leading to Senator John Kerry's (D-MA) first Purple Heart -- as decisive evidence supporting the anti-Kerry group <A href="http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/swift_boat_veterans_for_truth">Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's allegation that Kerry did not deserve the award. John E. O'Neill, co-founder of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and co-author of Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, cited Schachte in his book and in television appearances. While Novak wrote that Schachte "said he is a political independent who has voted for candidates of both parties," Schachte has a history of political contributions heavily weighted to Republicans, including $1,000 to George W. Bush's presidential campaigns in both 2000 and 2004.

Since 1997, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Schachte has contributed $8,500 to federal candidates or national political organizations. All but $1,750 of those donations have gone to Republican candidates or to the Republican Party:

2004

$250 to Senator Charlie Condon (R-SC)

$1,000 to President George W. Bush ®

2003

$500 to Representative James W. Demint (R-SC)

2001

$1,250 to Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

$250 to Representative Joel Hefley (R-CO)

$250 to Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO)

$250 to Henry Brown (R-candidate in SC)

2000

$250 to Republican Party of South Carolina

$750 to Henry Brown (R-candidate in SC)

$500 to Representative John M. Spratt (D-SC)

$1,000 to then-Governor George W. Bush ®

$250 to H.B. "Buck" Limehouse (R-candidate in SC)

1999

$500 to Senator John W. McCain (R-AZ), presidential candidate

1998

$250 to Representative John M. Spratt (D-SC)

$1,000 to Representative Bob Inglis (R-SC)

$1,000 Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC)

1997

$250 to Representative John M. Spratt (D-SC)

On August 27, writer and blogger Joshua Micah Marshall noted that Schachte is the new law partner of David A. Norcross at the law firm Blank Rome LLP. According to Blank Rome's website, Norcross "was recently appointed Chairman of the Republican National Convention's Committee on Arrangements for the 2004 Republican National Convention."

From http://mediamatters.org/items/200408270007

Just the facts.

I see. So you are calling the Rear Admiral a liar.

Because here's the thing. Nothing you posted proves anything. Wow. He voted for Bush? Maybe that's because he knows Kerry lied about an event that he was present at. DUH.

And Kerry? His claims of being a war hero are politically motivated. By your own standards, that should call his claims into question right? Or does that only apply to people you don't like or agree with?

Oh and Mediamatters is a left wing spin machine. No agenda there.

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501©(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative "misinformation" in the U.S. media.

Quotation - mine.

[The_cavalierman]

I see. So you are calling the Rear Admiral a liar.

Because here's the thing. Nothing you posted proves anything. Wow. He voted for Bush? Maybe that's because he knows Kerry lied about an event that he was present at. DUH.

And Kerry? His claims of being a war hero are politically motivated. By your own standards, that should call his claims into question right? Or does that only apply to people you don't like or agree with?

Oh and Mediamatters is a left wing spin machine. No agenda there.

Quotation - mine.

The American public has to deal with high ranking public servants lying all of the time (including presidents). Placing a Rear Admiral on an integrity pedestal is silly. The information that was posted proved that these swift boaters had a political agenda which they tried to hide behind the flag, apple pie and honor.

It is comical that these supposedly pissed off veterans said nothing about Kerry for years and then all of a sudden they broke out in spontaneous anger. As a combat veteran I have little respect for Kerry if he lied and I have even less respect for these swift boaters who placed their politics above honor.

[ATV]

The guy who signed off on Kerry's Silver Star is retired Navy Captain George Elliott. He said in 2004 that he would never had done so if he had known the facts of the matter at the time. His sworn affadavit is here.

You know, these Swift Boat people remind me a lot of the 9/11 conspiracy folks, or other conspiracy theorists (Roswell, Kennedy, etc.). Facts don't matter to them. They keep parading the same outdated or false information - Over and over again.....

Veteran retracts criticism of Kerry

By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | August 6, 2004

WASHINGTON -- A week after Senator John F. Kerry heralded his wartime experience by surrounding himself at the Democratic convention with his Vietnam ''Band of Brothers," a separate group of veterans has launched a television ad campaign and a book that questions the basis for some of Kerry's combat medals. But yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book.

Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

The statement refers to an episode in which Kerry killed a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher, part of a chain of events that formed the basis of his Silver Star. Over time, some Kerry critics have questioned whether the soldier posed a danger to Kerry's crew. Crew members have said Kerry's actions saved their lives.

Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star.

''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

Elliott said he was no under personal or political pressure to sign the statement, but he did feel ''time pressure" from those involved in the book. ''That's no excuse," Elliott said. ''I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake."

The affidavit also contradicted earlier statements by Elliott, who came to Boston during Kerry's 1996 Senate campaign to defend Kerry on similar charges, saying that Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star.

The book, ''Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," is to be published next week. Yesterday it reached number one on the bestseller list on Amazon.com, based on advance orders, in part because of publicity about it on the Drudge Report.

The book seeks to undermine one of the central claims of Kerry's campaign -- that his Vietnam War heroism would make him a good commander in chief.

While the Regnery Publishing yesterday declined to release an advance copy of the book, Drudge's website quotes it as saying, ''Elliott indicates that a Silver Star recommendation would not have been made by him had he been aware of the actual facts."Continued..

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

[ZoEd]

I'm sorry but when you suddenly decide the person you recommended for the silver ****ing star is a bad person during a presidential campiagn I have to wonder. Even if it was Kerry's anti-war activities that did it - did he or didn't he deserve the friggin award... because whatever he does after the fact changes nothing. We can't go back and say someone didn't win a superbowl because they bad mouth the NFL later.

Destino I can only speak from my experiences in todays military. I know nothing about medals during that era and if they were giving equally or fairly. All I can tell you is in todays military it's not equal or fair. It's like the Pro Bowl, it's a popularity contest. I would bet that hundreds didn't receive awards they deserved during Vietnam while hundreds did. Not to rag on O's but they have a tendency to know the right people and historically receive awards for acts far less heroic than those under them. I'm not saying Kerry completely lied, I wasn't there. However, from what I've heard and read I believe he seriously embellished his accomplishments and tried to use that as platform to help win an election and it came back to bite him in the ass.

I guess what I'm trying to say is people receive awards in the military all the time for doing little to nothing because of who the know. You know the old saying "it's not who you know, it's who you ............." :2cents:

[The_cavalierman]

You know, these Swift Boat people remind me a lot of the 9/11 conspiracy folks, or other conspiracy theorists (Roswell, Kennedy, etc.). Facts don't matter to them. They keep parading the same outdated or false information - Over and over again.....

Veteran retracts criticism of Kerry

By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | August 6, 2004

WASHINGTON -- A week after Senator John F. Kerry heralded his wartime experience by surrounding himself at the Democratic convention with his Vietnam ''Band of Brothers," a separate group of veterans has launched a television ad campaign and a book that questions the basis for some of Kerry's combat medals. But yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book.

Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

The statement refers to an episode in which Kerry killed a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher, part of a chain of events that formed the basis of his Silver Star. Over time, some Kerry critics have questioned whether the soldier posed a danger to Kerry's crew. Crew members have said Kerry's actions saved their lives.

Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star.

''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

Elliott said he was no under personal or political pressure to sign the statement, but he did feel ''time pressure" from those involved in the book. ''That's no excuse," Elliott said. ''I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake."

The affidavit also contradicted earlier statements by Elliott, who came to Boston during Kerry's 1996 Senate campaign to defend Kerry on similar charges, saying that Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star.

The book, ''Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," is to be published next week. Yesterday it reached number one on the bestseller list on Amazon.com, based on advance orders, in part because of publicity about it on the Drudge Report.

The book seeks to undermine one of the central claims of Kerry's campaign -- that his Vietnam War heroism would make him a good commander in chief.

While the Regnery Publishing yesterday declined to release an advance copy of the book, Drudge's website quotes it as saying, ''Elliott indicates that a Silver Star recommendation would not have been made by him had he been aware of the actual facts."Continued..

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

QFT:applause:

[The_cavalierman]

Destino I can only speak from my experiences in todays military. I know nothing about medals during that era and if they were giving equally or fairly. All I can tell you is in todays military it's not equal or fair. It's like the Pro Bowl, it's a popularity contest. I would bet that hundreds didn't receive awards they deserved during Vietnam while hundreds did. Not to rag on O's but they have a tendency to know the right people and historically receive awards for acts far less heroic than those under them. I'm not saying Kerry completely lied, I wasn't there. However, from what I've heard and read I believe he seriously embellished his accomplishments and tried to use that as platform to help win an election and it came back to bite him in the ass.

I guess what I'm trying to say is people receive awards in the military all the time for doing little to nothing because of who the know. You know the old saying "it's not who you know, it's who you ............." :2cents:

The practice ZoEd speaks of has been going on since the military was organized so this should come as no shock to anyone. Officers have always been shown favor because of their rank and status as "leaders of men/women"...again, no shocker there.

The problem in this particular case is Kerry got these awards even though his congressional testimony pissed a bunch of veterans off. These veterans did nothing for years and then all of a sudden they broke out with a very election-convenient case of the @ss.

Some are trying to argue that these veterans did not know about Kerry's embellished war stories and records, but these veterans did know about his congressional testimony which is a matter of public record. Like I've said before, If someone I served with tried to falsely represent what happened or what they did I am coming after them right then and there. I am not going to wait 50 years before saying this guy is full of crap. Now if he is a buddy of mine I will give him an opportunity to change his tune but if he was an @ss I'm going to nuke him first privately if possible and then publicly if he refuses to come clean.

My unit like many others lost men both in Afghanistan and Iraq. I will be damned if I allow A-N-Y-O-N-E to misrepresent or dishonor any of my comrades, dead or alive. This to me is a matter of honor and it goes far beyond politics and political games. If the Swift boat guys didn't like John Kerry then I certainly had no problem with them voting for Bush, but for them to play politics with a matter of honor is more disgusting than anything I can think of.

Now we have learned that the swift boaters pressured the guy who signed off on Kerry's silver star to sign thier bull-**** affidavit an he regrets doing it. This proves this was a political hack job and it had nothing to do with maintaining the honor or integrity of their unit or their service.

Swift Boaters should go down in history as scum with no honor IMO. If Kerry lied about his service he can join them too. If their is such thing as Karma these swift boaters should brace themselves because payback is gonna be a mutha****er.

[Burgold]

The statement which strikes me as somewhat false is the "Well, they didn't care if he was a Senator" bit. The U.S. Senate is a very high office and being one of only 100 men entrusted to write the legislation and guide this country is a very big deal. If they thought Kerry was that much of a danger and scum, then I think that they would have cared if he was writing military legislation, overseeing and approving military budgets, had the power to approve/disapprove of a President going to war, etc.

We're not talking about a mayor or even a governor where the influence is localized. We're talking about the U.S. Senate and if you know that X is running for Senate, but is a lying, untrustworth POS and you don't care that he's running for Senate or is a Senator than shame on you.

[The_cavalierman]

The statement which strikes me as somewhat false is the "Well, they didn't care if he was a Senator" bit. The U.S. Senate is a very high office and being one of only 100 men entrusted to write the legislation and guide this country is a very big deal. If they thought Kerry was that much of a danger and scum, then I think that they would have cared if he was writing military legislation, overseeing and approving military budgets, had the power to approve/disapprove of a President going to war, etc.

We're not talking about a mayor or even a governor where the influence is localized. We're talking about the U.S. Senate and if you know that X is running for Senate, but is a lying, untrustworth POS and you don't care that he's running for Senate or is a Senator than shame on you.

That was one of the first questions I asked burgold,

If they are so pissed off at Kerry why didn't they go after him no matter what he was doing? If it were me I would be on that @ss like an alligator. I would not be able to live with myself if I knew someone was dishonoring me or my comrades that I served with in combat. That is why this swift boat non-sense does not pass the common sense smell test.

If I were the swift boaters I would have been all over Kerry from the congressional testimony until today. That is why I know they are full of crap and were nothing more than political hacks.

[RLeVan]

In a nutshell, this post has described the class differences between officers and enlisted. Enlisted personell start off at the bottom of acquiring LOA's and and LOC's over their first 2-3yrs of service while officers start out at NavCom's with 6 months of service. Any Admiral worth their salt will ask a Chief what is going on before asking the officer.

We can all play the game, and the military is much like any other business. The fact of the matter is, most of us consider bad officers as dirt (censored) bags. In other words, out of sight and out of mind. The leap from Senator to president is a HUGE leap. In other words, Kerry could only screw up his own state. The topic came to fruition when hey ran for president. At that point, us enlisted folk had some leverage that we hadn't had before.