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

[TrumanB]

Did they even attempt to handle this like men with honor before they became political tools for the GOP?

And do you think what Kerry said to Congress about our military was honorable? I have no sympathy for the man.

[The_cavalierman]

And do you think what Kerry said to Congress about our military was honorable? I have no sympathy for the man.

I did not hear or see his testimony so I do not know. My question to you is did Kerry talk about the military in general or about his own experiences in the combat theater during his testimony?

Their is a huge difference....

[The_cavalierman]

And do you think what Kerry said to Congress about our military was honorable? I have no sympathy for the man.

Do you know if any of these swift boaters tried to confront Kerry on both his testimony or his book prior to taking action?

[TrumanB]

I did not hear or see his testimony so I do not know. My question to you is did Kerry talk about the military in general or about his own experiences in the combat theater during his testimony?

Their is a huge difference....

His testimony is well documented and available all over the internet (on film and in text). There are embellishments and outright lies in his testimony. Much of it was believed to be politically motivated (he ran for Congress the following year on an anti-war platform). You should look it up and decide for yourself.

Since you're a military man, I would think that you would have just as much indignation towards Kerry as you do with the Swift Boat veterans. Kerry has shown nothing but contempt for the military during his entire political career. I don't have a problem that he protested the Vietnam War upon his return. I do have a problem on how conducted his protests and how he threw the entire military under the bus in the process.

[TrumanB]

Do you know if any of these swift boaters tried to confront Kerry on both his testimony or his book prior to taking action?

I have no idea and really for me, it doesn't matter. You can take all of the accusations about his service in Vietnam and throw them out the window and my opinion still wouldn't change about him. His record throughout his career is clear when it comes to the military and it is one of contempt and disrespect.

[Destino]

1. Bush was a fighter pilot but chose to stay at home in Texas when fighter pilots were desperately needed in Vietnam.

I know many Air force fighter pilots and Army helicopter pilots and the one common trait of these guys and gals is that their is a fight going on they want in on it.

Don't forget that he put a flight suit on in the little "mission accomplished" thing. You'd think a guy that avoided the war would piss off the armed forces guy when he later plays fighter pilot for the press.

[The_cavalierman]

His testimony is well documented and available all over the internet (on film and in text). There are embellishments and outright lies in his testimony. Much of it was believed to be politically motivated (he ran for Congress the following year on an anti-war platform). You should look it up and decide for yourself.

Since you're a military man, I would think that you would have just as much indignation towards Kerry as you do with the Swift Boat veterans. Kerry has shown nothing but contempt for the military during his entire political career. I don't have a problem that he protested the Vietnam War upon his return. I do have a problem on how conducted his protests and how he threw the entire military under the bus in the process.

I not a fan of anyone that lies about their service record.

[The_cavalierman]

Don't forget that he put a flight suit on in the little "mission accomplished" thing. You'd think a guy that avoided the war would piss off the armed forces guy when he later plays fighter pilot for the press.

That I do not understand....

The Swift boat dudes had to realize the alternative to Kerry was a coward, chump that ducked Vietnam.

Not to mention his running mate that had better things to do than to join the thousands of others sacrificing for the country..

Nice job swifties....you really picked a winner:rolleyes:

The GOP must have promised the swifties some serious cash and prizes because the country paid a terrible price for 8 years of Bush (43).:doh:

[gstahl]

and the purpose of this thread is...

to sell books.

Besides for the title being misleading ("For Sale:" was missing), does not seem like the kind of trend in threads I want to see. How about taking this kind of thing to ebay. The heck with the battle of politics, in the end this is simply someone hawking a product (the link takes you to where you can buy the book).

[The_cavalierman]

and the purpose of this thread is...

to sell books.

Besides for the title being misleading ("For Sale:" was missing), does not seem like the kind of trend in threads I want to see. How about taking this kind of thing to ebay. The heck with the battle of politics, in the end this is simply someone hawking a product (the link takes you to where you can buy the book).

Good point....

We know how the story began

We know the impact of the key players

We know what author conveniently left on the cutting room floor

And sadly...we have lived through nearly 4 years of the results

[The_cavalierman]

Don't forget that he put a flight suit on in the little "mission accomplished" thing. You'd think a guy that avoided the war would piss off the armed forces guy when he later plays fighter pilot for the press.

Most pilots I know want in on any action if their is a something going on...they will do anything they can to get in the fight.

Bush was either a really bad pilot (and knew it) or he was a chump, sissy that used that national guard gig to get out of Vietnam. Then Bush had the nerve to pull that national guard mission accomplished stunt.

I am glad The GOP got the "man" they wanted.

[TrumanB]

I not a fan of anyone that lies about their service record.

That still doesn't answer my question. Research Kerry's side too. You'll find plenty of lies and embellishments. Here's an article from the Washington Post concerning one of Kerry's biggest lies, that he crossed into Cambodia during the Vietnam War. He repeatedly lied about this and even used it on the Senate floor to influence a vote on aid to the Nicaraguan Contras.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27211-2004Aug23.html

Kerry's Cambodia Whopper

By Joshua Muravchik

Tuesday, August 24, 2004; Page A17

Most of the debate between the former shipmates who swear by John Kerry and the group of other Swift boat veterans who are attacking his military record focuses on matters that few of us have the experience or the moral standing to judge. But one issue, having nothing to do with medals, wounds or bravery under fire, goes to the heart of Kerry's qualifications for the presidency and is therefore something that each of us must consider. That is Kerry's apparently fabricated claim that he fought in Cambodia.

It is an assertion he made first, insofar as the written record reveals, in 1979 in a letter to the Boston Herald. Since then he has repeated it on at least eight occasions during Senate debate or in news interviews, most recently to The Post this year (an interview posted on Kerry's Web site). The most dramatic iteration came on the floor of the Senate in 1986, when he made it the centerpiece of a carefully prepared 20-minute oration against aid to the Nicaraguan contras.

Kerry argued that contra aid could put the United States on the path to deeper involvement despite denials by the Reagan administration of any such intent. Kerry began by reading out similar denials regarding Vietnam from presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. Then he offered this devastating riposte:

"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."

However seared he was, Kerry's spokesmen now say his memory was faulty. When the Swift boat veterans who oppose Kerry presented statements from his commanders and members of his unit denying that his boat entered Cambodia, none of Kerry's shipmates came forward, as they had on other issues, to corroborate his account. Two weeks ago Kerry's spokesmen began to backtrack. First, one campaign aide explained that Kerry had patrolled the Mekong Delta somewhere "between" Cambodia and Vietnam. But there is no between; there is a border. Then another spokesman told reporters that Kerry had been "near Cambodia." But the point of Kerry's 1986 speech was that he personally had taken part in a secret and illegal war in a neutral country. That was only true if he was "in Cambodia," as he had often said he was. If he was merely "near," then his deliberate misstatement falsified the entire speech.

Next, the campaign leaked a new version through the medium of historian Douglas Brinkley, author of "Tour of Duty," a laudatory book on Kerry's military service. Last week Brinkley told the London Telegraph that while Kerry had been 50 miles from the border on Christmas, he "went into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions." Oddly, though, while Brinkley devotes nearly 100 pages of his book to Kerry's activities that January and February, pinpointing the locations of various battles and often placing Kerry near Cambodia, he nowhere mentions Kerry's crossing into Cambodia, an inconceivable omission if it were true.

Now a new official statement from the campaign undercuts Brinkley. It offers a minimal (thus harder to impeach) claim: that Kerry "on one occasion crossed into Cambodia," on an unspecified date. But at least two of the shipmates who are supporting Kerry's campaign (and one who is not) deny their boat ever crossed the border, and their testimony on this score is corroborated by Kerry's own journal, kept while on duty. One passage reproduced in Brinkley's book says: "The banks of the [Rach Giang Thanh River] whistled by as we churned out mile after mile at full speed. On my left were occasional open fields that allowed us a clear view into Cambodia. At some points, the border was only fifty yards away and it then would meander out to several hundred or even as much as a thousand yards away, always making one wonder what lay on the other side." His curiosity was never satisfied, because this entry was from Kerry's final mission.

After his discharge, Kerry became the leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Once, he presented to Congress the accounts by his VVAW comrades of having "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires . . . to human genitals . . . razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan . . . poisoned foodstocks." Later it was shown that many of the stories on which Kerry based this testimony were false, some told by impostors who had stolen the identities of real GIs, but Kerry himself was not implicated in the fraud. And his own over-the-top generalization that such "crimes [were] committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command" could be charged up to youthfulness and the fevers of the times.

But Kerry has repeated his Cambodia tale throughout his adult life. He has claimed that the epiphany he had that Christmas of 1968 was about truthfulness. "One of the things that most struck me about Vietnam was how people were lied to," he explained in a subsequent interview. If -- as seems almost surely the case -- Kerry himself has lied about what he did in Vietnam, and has done so not merely to spice his biography but to influence national policy, then he is surely not the kind of man we want as our president.

[Midnight Judges]

The swift boat Vets didn't defeat John Kerry. John Kerry was a crappy candidate. He lost by 4 million votes. The only people who listened to the swift boaters were Republicans who were not going to vote for John Kerry anyway. The leaders of the SBV were liars and hypocrites. I'm surprised anyone who was part of that smear campaign would admit it.

[Zguy28]

The swift boat Vets didn't defeat John Kerry. John Kerry was a crappy candidate. He lost by 4 million votes. The only people who listened to the swift boaters were Republicans who were not going to vote for John Kerry anyway.

That's sure not the picture I get from reading through this thread. :2cents:

[PleaseBlitz]

The swift boat Vets didn't defeat John Kerry. John Kerry was a crappy candidate. He lost by 4 million votes. The only people who listened to the swift boaters were Republicans who were not going to vote for John Kerry anyway. The leaders of the SBV were liars and hypocrites. I'm surprised anyone who was part of that smear campaign would admit it.

Ive been laughing throughout this entire thread exactly for that reason.

LOOK at the thread. All the lefty's that would vote for Kerry think the Swift Boat Veterans are evil liars with no honor, and all the righty's that would never vote for Kerry think they are god-like men that couldnt possibly have done it for political reasons. The people in "the middle" either voted FOR Bush or AGAINST Bush. Didnt matter who the other option was.

People's minds were made up on John Kerry long before the SBV's said a damn thing and nobody's opinions have changed since.

[The_cavalierman]

What is the title of this thread again?

:doh:

[Mad Mike]

Good point....

We know how the story began

We know the impact of the key players

We know what author conveniently left on the cutting room floor

And sadly...we have lived through nearly 4 years of the results

You don't know squat. :laugh:

[The_cavalierman]

You don't know squat. :laugh:

More enlightened commentary from our resident assistant ****-house lawyer.

How's the ticker little angry fella?

:laugh:

[TrumanB]

More enlightened commentary from our resident assistant ****-house lawyer.

How's the ticker?

:laugh:

So, cavalierman, what are your feelings toward John Kerry? An honorable man? A liar? Something in between?

Like I said earlier, as a military man, I would think that you would have serious issues with Kerry and his record (even disgarding the Swift Boat accusations). I find it strange that you can have such strong feelings towards the Swift Boat veterans, but do not show similar contempt towards Kerry. Perhaps it is because you are just as partisan as the Swift Boat veterans are?

[The_cavalierman]

So, cavalierman, what are your feelings toward John Kerry? An honorable man? A liar? Something in between?

Like I said earlier, as a military man, I would think that you would have serious issues with Kerry and his record (even disgarding the Swift Boat accusations). I find it strange that you can have such strong feelings towards the Swift Boat veterans, but do not show similar contempt towards Kerry. Perhaps it is because you are just as partisan as the Swift Boat veterans are?

Or....you are jumping to flawed ASSumptions?

I think John Kerry is a career politician and that automatically comes with it's own warped expectations. I admire the fact that Kerry actually went to Vietnam and fought when our current POTUS and VPOTUS were cowering somewhere else. If Kerry embellished his record then the Navy and other authorities can go after him...but since they have not then all of the Accusations surrounding Kerry have no validity.

Additionally...when Tim Russert pressed some of the swift Boaters during an interview they bumbled over themselves when pressed about their own records and the very things they questioned about Kerry.

I think the Swift Boat Veterans hid behind their combat veteran status (claiming they were seeking the truth) when they were really out playing politics.

If they wanted to put out thir version of the truth then they did not need to ally themselves with the GOP. They could have simply gone to the media, presented their evidence if they were seeking the truth or to confront Kerry on his claims. If they hated Kerry so much they could have done what others did and quietly gone to the polls and voted for Bush.

The other factor that you never address in your posts is the fact that the Swift boaters made a big effort to cover their GOP tracks. If you are angry at Kerry and you want the truth then why the effort to cover your tracks? These are the clear indicators that Swift Boat veterans were paid political hacks.

How else can YOU explain why some of these guys recanted their anti-Kerry stories AFTER the election? You never seem to address this in any of your anti-Kerry posts.

Again I ask....what is the title of this thread?

[TrumanB]

Or....you are jumping to flawed ASSumptions?

I think John Kerry is a career politician and that automatically comes with it's own warped expectations. I admire the fact that Kerry actually went to Vietnam and fought when our current POTUS and VPOTUS were cowering somewhere else. If Kerry embellished his record then the Navy and other authorities can go after him...but since they have not then all of the Accusations surrounding Kerry have no validity.

Additionally...when Tim Russert pressed some of the swift Boaters during an interview they bumbled over themselves when pressed about their own records and the very things they questioned about Kerry.

I think the Swift Boat Veterans hid behind their combat veteran status (claiming they were seeking the truth) when they were really out playing politics.

If they wanted to put out thir version of the truth then they did not need to ally themselves with the GOP. They could have simply gone to the media, presented their evidence if they were seeking the truth or to confront Kerry on his claims. If they hated Kerry so much they could have done what others did and quietly gone to the polls and voted for Bush.

The other factor that you never address in your posts is the fact that the Swift boaters made a big effort to cover their GOP tracks. If you are angry at Kerry and you want the truth then why the effort to cover your tracks? These are the clear indicators that Swift Boat veterans were paid political hacks.

How else can YOU explain why some of these guys recanted their anti-Kerry stories AFTER the election? You never seem to address this in any of your anti-Kerry posts.

Again I ask....what is the title of this thread?

It is obvious you will not answer my question concerning Kerry. It is also obvious that you are so partisan that you cannot or will not admit that Kerry is a habitual liar. I don't know if the Swift Boat veterans are right in their accusations or if Kerry is right in his defense. There are too many conflicting accounts, so most likely it is something in between. Like they say, there's three sides to every story: his side, their side, and the truth. Anyway, it does not matter because Kerry is a proven liar and hypocrite even if you discount what he did or didn't do in Vietnam.

By the way, nice comment there about my ASSumptions. I have seen you debate others by name calling, but I thought I was being respectful of your opinions and so I don't know why you had to go there. It appears that is the only way you know how to debate, which is not my kind of game. So I am bowing out with any further debate with you on this subject.

Hail to the Redskins!

[Burgold]

I think you are right about there being three sides to this story. I do think however that while Kerry most likely embellished and the swiftees most likely embellished that the reason the Swiftboaters acted was to aid the Republicans and not some altruistic or powerful desire to set the record straight. It was propaganda. Often propaganda has at least some truth to it, but how that tool is used tells whether it was used for selfish, noble or dastardly purposes.

I'm fairly certain that in this case, the motives weren't entirely noble.

[TrumanB]

I think you are right about there being three sides to this story. I do think however that while Kerry most likely embellished and the swiftees most likely embellished that the reason the Swiftboaters acted was to aid the Republicans and not some altruistic or powerful desire to set the record straight. It was propaganda. Often propaganda has at least some truth to it, but how that tool is used tells whether it was used for selfish, noble or dastardly purposes.

I'm fairly certain that in this case, the motives weren't entirely noble.

Oh, I agree. I think you're an idiot or completey partisan if you think the Swift Boat ads weren't politically motviated. BUT, my point is that Kerry was using the Vietnam War for political purposes the day he got back from Vietnam. Then he proceeded to lie about his involvement over there throughout his political career, even on the Senate floor to sway votes away for aid to the Contras. If you're going to use it to further your political career, don't cry to mama when the tables are turned.

[Burgold]

There are two possibilities the way I see it.

A) He was outraged at what he experienced or was told of in Vietnam and was so motivated he found a way to get before Congress and speak. Once he did, he found that he kind of liked it and he was swept up in a rush of events which propelled him into politics.

He orchestrated the whole thing knowing that the people voting in his state would really rally behind a tough anti-war "truth teller"

C) He always wanted to be in politics and found the events he experienced disturbing, so he wrangled a way to get in front of Congress to voice his outrage in a way that would earn him noteriety an propel him towards his ambitions.

I think C is probably the likliest.

[TrumanB]

There are two possibilities the way I see it.

A) He was outraged at what he experienced or was told of in Vietnam and was so motivated he found a way to get before Congress and speak. Once he did, he found that he kind of liked it and he was swept up in a rush of events which propelled him into politics.

He orchestrated the whole thing knowing that the people voting in his state would really rally behind a tough anti-war "truth teller"

C) He always wanted to be in politics and found the events he experienced disturbing, so he wrangled a way to get in front of Congress to voice his outrage in a way that would earn him noteriety an propel him towards his ambitions.

I think C is probably the likliest.

Isn't that THREE possiblilites? :laugh:

I agree somewhat with C, although I believe he was willing to embellish and even lie to further his political career.